Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Imported Coal

Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the cost of imported coal; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Barron: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he discuss the current comparison between the price of British and international coal? Will he take into account the present level of international stocks as they reflect the investment in 1973, after the oil crisis, and how that price reflects the current weakness of the dollar, which is causing great concern when compared with European currencies? Will he also consider the fact that if we turned to the international market, international prices would rise immediately as a result? Will the Secretary of State answer the question raised by the chairman of British Coal recently as to whether we are to close more pits against such an uncertain background? Such closures are totally unjustified.

Mr. Parkinson: No. The Government have made it clear, through what they have said and in financial support for the industry, that we want a strong, viable, competitive British coal industry. It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I agree with him that it is misleading to consider the marginal cost of coal in international markets and to state that 80 million tonnes could be purchased at that price. If the Central Electricity Generating Board were to enter the market for that quantity of coal, the price would be bound to rise.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that metallurgical coke is required for the United Kingdom steel industry and should be imported? Considering the true figures for importation prices, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chinese, the Colombians, the South Africans and the Australians can all undercut us in real prices? We must face that situation.

Mr. Parkinson: I have said that we must have a competitive coal industry. Equally, I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not produce enough of certain grades of coal—for example, anthracite and coking coal. That

is one reason why British Coal has proposals to invest at Margam. To make that investment pay there must be flexible working and a new approach to working arrangements. Without those we will have to continue to import the coking coal that we could produce in this country.

Mr. Benn: Has it occurred to the Secretary of State that the policy of importing coal — including some from South Africa—of further pit closures and of the selling of profitable pits confirms almost every forecast made by Arthur Scargill since he became president of the National Union of Mineworkers? He forecast those events with clinical precision. Is it not a fact that that must be set against the problem of hypothermia, which is likely to kill many people this winter because of the lack of cheap fuel?

Mr. Parkinson: I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about closures. No other Minister has ever approached the right hon. Gentleman's record for closing pits. What is more, under the right hon. Gentleman, miners did not receive the redundancy compensation that they receive under this Government. Coal imports represent about 8 per cent. of total coal consumption in this country. I want to see a strong British coal industry. We are putting up £2 million a day to ensure that the industry receives the investment. We need modern working practices to accompany the investment, and the industry will then have a bright future.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to beat the attractions of foreign coal is to continue the increase in efficiency and competitiveness that the industry has already seen? In that connection, does my right hon. Friend agree that our congratulations are due to the entire industry on the magnificent figures recently announced by British Coal in respect of productivity per man shift?

Mr. Parkinson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought that up. The breaking of the "4 tonnes per man shift" barrier is something for which the entire industry deserves credit. It deserves credit also for achieving that during an overtime ban. It just shows what the industry is capable of doing if men and management work together and make use of modern investment.

Mr. Eadie: I have listened to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the importation of coal. However, he must spell it out more clearly. He is on record as saying different things to different audiences. Does he deny that he has told audiences that if the electricity industry is privatised private industry will be allowed to buy coal in whatever market it chooses? That means another slaughtering of the coal industry, with more pit closures and job losses.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman has quoted only half of what I said. I said that we would not bind the privatised industry to buy British. I went on to say that we believe that the British coal industry, if it continues to improve productivity, will become a supplier of choice, not of necessity. The hon. Gentleman should not quote the first part without quoting the second.

Electricity Council

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what the budget for the Electricity Council has been in each of the last five years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): The net operating costs of the Electricity Council borne by electricity boards in England and Wales from 1982–83 to 1986–87 were respectively £28·2 million, £30·8 million, £32·4 million, £35·3 million and £36·5 million.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the Electricity Council employs more people than the Department of Energy; and will he tell us what they all do?

Mr. Spicer: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second is that those people are responsible for the policy formulation of the industry, including, for instance, industrial relations and financial planning.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister tell us what proportion of the budget in each of the years that he mentioned has been spent on research into the efficient use of electricity, renewable sources of electricity and its renewable sources abroad?

Mr. Spicer: I do not have the exact figures, but it is highly unlikely to be very much. All those matters are undertaken by the Central Electricity Generating Board, not the Electricity Council.

Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), when he was Minister for Energy back in the 1970s, did not carry out the recommendations of the Plowden committee for the reorganisation of the electricity industry, and that, as a result, not only has the Electricity Council's staff exceeded that of the Department of Energy, but its spending is far greater than that of the Department?

Mr. Spicer: The Electricity Council's budget is considerably larger than that of the Department of Energy, which this year is £22·9 million. As for the first part of the question, I am sure that, as my hon. Friend has asked it, it must be right.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister tell us what subsidy is paid per tonne of South African, Polish and American coal coming into this country to be supplied to the CEGB?

Mr. Spicer: I think that that relates to the last question. However, I believe that the figure—which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given me—is 2·;5 per cent.

Electricity (Privatisation)

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of the area electricity boards to discuss privatisation of the industry.

Mr. Parkinson: I met the area board chairmen collectively on 1 October to discuss various aspects of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, and I plan to meet them again early in the new year.

Mr. Moss: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the area board chairmen are overwhelmingly in favour of privatisation and believe that they will give customers a better deal in the private sector?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The area board chairmen are overwhelmingly in favour of the industry's privatisation.

Mr. Hardy: What did the area board chairmen tell the Secretary of State about the future of the national grid,

and, secondly, about the maintenance of jobs within their areas and in the industry generally? Would he care to express his own view on those matters?

Mr. Parkinson: The area board chairmen and I discussed the question of privatisation. In spite of rumours to the contrary, nobody in the Electricity Council, the area boards, the CEGB, or the Government wants the grid to be broken up. The area board chairmen believe that their industry has a bright future — the consumption of electricity has been increasing—and that in the private sector they can offer their employees a more secure and better-paid future. They all intend to ensure that their work force receives worker-shareholdings at preferential rates.

Mr. Adley: I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend has said about the national grid. Does he agree that the national grid is the jewel in the crown of our electricity industry? Is he prepared to go a little further and give a categorical assurance that, when the legislation comes, the preservation of the national grid will be written into it?

Mr. Parkinson: There is not and never has been at any time any question of breaking up the grid. An integrated grid has served the country well and will continue to do so in the future.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State intend the ownership of the national grid to be in private or public hands? Did the chairmen of the electricity boards make it clear to him that the 9 per cent. increase in prices was completely unjustified, that the industrial rebate for prices may mean that, yet again, consumers will pay more for electricity, and that it may be illegal?

Mr. Parkinson: No. When I talked to the area board chairmen about prices I explained that the industry was entering a period of substantial capital investment and that it had to develop an income base to fund that investment, whether it be in the private or public sector. They saw the sense of that argument, as, I am sure, one of these days the hon. Gentleman will.

Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend note that the area boards want not only privatisation but that 10 out of the 11 wish to be privatised as individual utilities? They believe that they can compete against one another, and one or two have confirmed that they can produce electricity in their area more economically than they can buy it from the national grid.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is correct. The area board chairmen all said that they would like to have the right to generate in their areas. At the moment, with the exception of one power station in Hereford, none of the area boards has any generating capacity. They would like such a right to be among the rights that they will acquire when they are privatised.

Fuel Disconnections

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce legislation to require the fuel industries to satisfy themselves about the state of health of consumers who are in arrears with payments, before proceeding to disconnection; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): The gas and electricity industries operate a


voluntary code of practice on paying electricity and gas bills. Under this code, if the sick or disabled inform the industries of their circumstances, the industries undertake to try to reach an agreement on payment arrangements which would avoid the need for disconnnection.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the position is still far from satisfactory? The number of disconnections in the gas industry in the first six months of this year, compared with last year, increased by 40 per cent. There are currently about 1,200 deaths each year from hypothermia, so, with the winter coming, we must establish a system whereby all vulnerable customers are recorded at the local billing and registration points. If they are behind with their payments, they can be visited and, in every possible case, disconnection avoided. Thus, the numbers of disconnections would be substantially reduced.

Mr. Morrison: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am concerned that the number of gas disconnections has been increasing. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the National Gas Consumers' Council is looking into this matter, and I discussed with it the manner in which it should do so. With regard to the code of practice, it is important that the points that the hon. Gentleman made in his supplementary question are covered. I believe that, by and large, that is precisely the case.

Sir Dudley Smith: I commend to my hon. Friend the East Midlands electricity authority, which covers my constituency, which bends over backwards in its efforts to avoid having to cut anybody off. It is very humane in its approach. Perhaps other authorities might copy its example.

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that only two weeks ago I was in part of the East Midlands electricity authority's area and observed what it was doing. The number of disconnections in the electricity industry is on a downward trend. There is an undertaking that no pensioner household will be cut off before the end of March.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the Government's criterion is that those organisations have to make a commercial profit? Is it not clear, therefore, that the Government are concerned more with profit than with the interests of the people? That is an absolute disgrace. It is about time that the people of this country recognised that the Government are concerned only with private interests and not with the people as a whole.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with what he has said. Somebody has to pay for the fuel consumed, whether it is gas or electricity. The Government have a number of projects, incuding the homes insulation scheme, which help those least able to help themselves. However, as I said, somebody has to pay for the fuel consumed.

Alternative Energy Sources

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Council of Ministers about alternative sources of energy.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I expect alternative sources of energy to be discussed at the Council of Energy Ministers planned for 21 March 1988 under German presidency.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the balance between United Kingdom national research and European Community research is about right at present, or' does he think that more should be undertaken on a Community basis?

Mr. Spicer: Over a period of years we have done reasonably well from the EEC on the matter of renewables. Our present renewable programme is valued at about £77 million, of which the Commission pays £5 million. As my hon. Friend probably knows, we have decided to increase our expenditure on renewables next year.

Mr. Chapman: As Government funds available for research into alternative forms of energy have more than quadrupled in the past few years, will my hon. Friend assure the House that at the meeting next March the question of duplication of research into alternative forms of energy will be avoided and that it ought to he part of a co-ordinated European programme to ensure that the extra money is being used in the most cost-effective way?

Mr. Spicer: Part of the agreement that Ministers reached last month was that there would be a common form of information and an improved and enhanced data base, which would overcome some of the worries of duplication that my hon. Friend has rightly stressed.

Electricity Charges

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent estimates he has made of the impact upon (a) pensioners, (b) low-income families and (c) domestic users generally, of increased electricity charges.

Mr. Michael Spicer: There has been no overall increase in electricity tariffs since April 1985, nor will there be any increase this winter. It will be for the Electricity Council to determine the effects on tariffs from next April of the new financial targets that we set for the industry.

Mr. Madden: Why are the old and the cold being asked next year and the year after to pay big increases which are wholly unnecessary and unjustified and will simply give City slickers a big profit when electricity is privatised? Does the Minister understand that it will not wash for Ministers to make comparisons between United Kingdom and Common Market electricity prices, when pensions in the Common Market are substantially higher than here? Does he further understand that it is deeply shameful for pensioners and low-income families to be ripped off in that way by Ministers whose entire lives are cosseted and who are protected against the cold at a time when there is great anxiety about the plight of pensioners and low-income families?

Mr. Spicer: The precise increases will depend upon what further success the industry has in reducing costs. We expect the average householder's expenditure to increase by 40p a week and the average pensioner's expenditure by 30p or 35p a week. I should stress that any increase next April will be the first effective increase since April 1985. Since that time single pensions have increased by £5·25 a week and are due to rise by a further £1·65 a week next April.

Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that it does not lie in the mouth of any Labour Member to express concern


about rising prices when the previous Labour Government presided over record increases in inflation and record increases in prices, to the detriment of the poor and the pensioners?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is correct. Under Labour, electricity tariffs rose by 30 per cent. in real terms; under us, electricity tariffs have fallen by 15 per cent. in real terms.

Miss Mowlam: Does the Minister intend after April next year to continue lower tariffs for industries such as ICI? If he does, will that continue to be to the detriment of, and cause increased handicap to, pensioners and people on low incomes?

Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said that the Opposition have rather changed their tune, having learnt what is happening—[Interruption.] Last week the Opposition were complaining about heavy increases in industrial costs, so their tune has changed. It is for the industry to determine exactly how the prices will be distributed. Our understanding is that the bulk and intensive discounts will remain.

Mr. Oppenheim: Can my hon. Friend tell us how much higher electricity prices would be now if we had given in to Scargill in 1984–85, as the Opposition urged us to do?

Mr. Spicer: I do not have the calculations with me, I am afraid, but that is a very good question. Prices would undoubtedly be much higher.

CEGB

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

Mr. Parkinson: I meet Lord Marshall regularly to discuss a range of issues concerning the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Darling: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he say that the public liability insurance in respect of each nuclear plant of only £20 million is woefully inadequate? Will he tell him that, if the industry is privatised, it should make proper provision for this risk and not rely on the state to underwrite the risk, thereby giving a generous public subsidy to cover one of the major running costs of the industry?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. There is a great deal of additional expenditure — far in excess of £20 million — to ensure that accidents do not take place. We set high standards of design, construction and operation. We have a Nuclear Inspectorate, which is wholly independent and has the right to license, or refuse to license, plants. We set a great deal of store by safety. The £20 million cover is cover of last resort. The real effort goes into making sure that it is never necessary.

Mr. Jack: When my right hon. Friend next speaks to the chairman, will he remind him, as the provider of cheap off-peak electricity, that that electricity is being taken up in Lancashire by only 6·2 per cent. of the population and that further promotion of cheap-rate electricity would assist those low-income categories who will have to bear the extra charges to which reference has been made in earlier questions?

Mr. Parkinson: I shall make sure that I make that point and that the area boards press hard the opportunities for taking off-peak electricity at very keen prices. I shall make sure also, as I have already done, that my Department runs a campaign to make elderly people aware of the possibilities that are available for saving energy and for using energy efficiently at little cost to themselves.

Mr. Skinner: Before the Secretary of State meets the chairman, will he give a guarantee to the House that, unlike what happened with British Telecom—when both industries were fattened up before privatisation—if the electricity industry is privatised, the fattening-up process will not allow any Tory Member of Parliament or ex-Cabinet Minister to take on the job of non-executive or executive director of the privatised industry?

Mr. Parkinson: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot give him that undertaking.

Mr. Butler: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he discuss the CEGB's ability to import coal freely? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the CEGB were able to import coal freely, it would be able to meet the real rate of return on assets which he requires of it and that there would be no need for a price increase next April?

Mr. Parkinson: I should tell my hon. Friend that we dealt with this question a little earlier. I made the point that although it is possible to buy coal more cheaply from overseas, I doubt whether one could buy the quantities necessary to replace the coal produced by British Coal. We are approaching the problem the other way round. We are trying to help British Coal to make itself a modern, efficient and competitive supplier. We think that our coal reserves are a very important asset, which should be used properly.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the members of the Central Electricity Generating Board are unanimously agreed that the transmission grid should not be separated from the generation of electricity? What does the right hon. Gentleman think of Lord Marshall's view that if the two were separated—whether in public or private ownership — the security of our electricity supply would be lowered and there would be a greater risk of blackouts?

Mr. Parkinson: It is true that the CEGB thinks that the grid should be retained by it and that we need an integrated system, whereby the CEGB controls the power stations and the grid. However, others in the industry do not think that that is essential. There is a strong body of opinion that argues that transmission should be separated from generation if one is to encourage private generators to come into transmission and competition in generation. We have not yet made a decision about those two arguments.

Insulation

Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many homes occupied by (i) pensioners and (ii) others, have been given financial assistance for insulation since 1983.

Mr. Peter Morrison: From 1983 to 1986 some 1,540,000 grants were paid under the homes insulation scheme, of which 312,000 were 90 per cent. grants to low income


households, and some 267,000 low-income households were assisted by the community insulation projects. Many of the beneficiaries have been pensioners.

Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply. Does he envisage any changes in the homes insulation scheme or the community insulation project?

Mr. Morrison: On the homes insulation scheme, the Government have already announced that the 90 per cent. grant will be extended to all households claiming supplementary benefit or housing benefit. That will mean that more than half as many homes again will be eligible. On the community insulation projects, all low-income households claiming income support, housing benefit or family credit will be eligible for the service from next April. That will more than double the number of eligible households, from fewer than 3 million to about 7 million.

Mr. Meale: Will the Minister confirm that yesterday British Coal agreed to sell 1,400 homes in Nottinghamshire to an organisation called the Lancashire Housing Association, which has assets worth less than £500,000? British Coal has agreed to sell them at a figure of £9·2 million.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are they insulated?

Mr. Meale: I am sorry that I took so long to get to the question. Mr. Speaker. These houses are very badly insulated. They house more than 2,500 pensioners, most of whom have given their lives to the coal industry, and now British Coal in Nottinghamshire is selling them and their homes down the river.

Mr. Morrison: If the households to which the hon. Gentleman referred have a case for help under the homes insulation scheme or the community insulation projects, I shall ensure that those householders have the right to find out what might be available for them. I am not in a position to say more than that.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend should be congratulated on the amount of insulation that has been installed, but what is the Government's thinking on windows? Windows allow the greatest heat loss from houses. Why is double glazing not an automatic feature of new house build? Why is it not put into the specifications, and what encouragement are the Government giving to the building industry to ensure that double glazing is installed to prevent heat loss and help with energy problems?

Mr. Morrison: On housing and building regulations, I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently issued a directive that draws attention to the need for double glazing as well as many other ways of insulating people's houses.

Nuclear Power Plants (Working Practices)

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to introduce legislation relating to working practices in nuclear power plants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Existing legislation provides the basis for effective control of working practices in nuclear power plants. These practices are regulated by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

Mr. Davies: I am disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to answer my question. As there is increasing evidence, especially from investigations into the results of the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that levels of radioactivity formerly considered safe are no longer acceptable, will the Department thoroughly review its attitude and introduce far more stringent safety standards at British nuclear plants?

Mr. Spicer: I did answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly. The implication was that there were no plans for further legislation because existing legislation is adequate at present. In direct response to his question about risk levels, the industry complies with and works entirely within the limits implied in the National Radiological Protection Board's new risk assessments.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that drawing the legislation more tightly might be counterproductive, in that tightly drawn legislation provides loopholes, whereas the present broad legislation indicates more widely what the Government intend?

Mr. Spicer: That is a fair point. Under the present legislation a great deal is left to the wisdom and discretion of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The inspectorate, with the operator, ensures that the plant is safe. That is the important point. My hon. Friend is quite right. Very detailed legislation and rules might actually lead to a decline in safety standards.

Mr. Lofthouse: The Minister will be aware that in December last year the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate expressed great concern about safety standards at Sellafield and, indeed, suggested that if standards were not improved within 12 months it would have to consider closing the plant down. Now that that period has expired, has the Minister received any information from the inspectorate as to whether its recommendations have been carried out and whether it is satisfied with safety standards at Sellafield?

Mr. Spicer: That is not exactly how it was. The Nil laid down certain conditions for Sellafield and a time scale within which they must be carried out. They have, indeed, been carried out—and within the time scale laid down.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As it takes three years to train an inspector, and as the nuclear industry is being considerably expanded and may be affected by privatisation, does the Minister recognise the need to increase the inspectorate beyond the level currently proposed? Does he agree that he should be putting plans into action to ensure that more inspectors can be trained than is currently possible?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a time lag between advertising for new inspectors and recruiting them. He will be aware, I am sure, that we have engaged in a substantial recruitment programme for the NII. I understand that the programme is going extremely well and it is planned to have 120 inspectors by the early part of next year. We are therefore well on target, including the provision of the training required.

Electricity Charges

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State For Energy what representations he has received from (a) district or regional health authorities or (b) other centrally funded public service employers relating to the proposed increases in electricity charges.

Mr. Michael Spicer: None, Sir.

Mr. Wareing: Nevertheless, in view of the serious financial crisis facing the hospital service, which according to the Daily Telegraph is recognised by the vast majority of people in this country, does the Minister agree that the Department should either give concessions to health authorities or press the Secretary of State for Social Services to provide added budget allocations for health authorities to cover the quite unnecessary increases in electricity charges?

Mr. Spicer: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that the increases are unnecessary. On present assessments, electricity accounts for slightly less than 1 per cent. of health services costs. The expected increases will thus be less than one tenth of 1 per cent. How that increased cost —estimated at about £8 million in a total budget of £22 billion next year—is finally accommodated is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Dykes: As I understand it, the Government want to increase the rate of return by increasing the charges because the rate of return is under 2·5 per cent., which is only one quarter of the rate of return in private industry. Once that rate of return has been increased and attracts private investors into the electricity generating industry, competition will drive down prices. Obviously, there is in the Government's policy a subtle point that has escaped my attention, but does that make sense?

Mr. Spicer: That is pretty good. The only additional point is that it was the Labour Government who introduced the concept of a 5 per cent. rate of return on new investment in the public sector. The Government are trying to edge the rate of return in the electricity industry towards that 5 per cent.

Mr. John Garrett: The Minister has just confirmed an answer given by one of his colleagues in the DHSS in a written answer on 24 November, in which the hon. Lady said that the increased cost of electricity would add about £8 million to the annual costs of the National Health Service. The Prime Minister frequently makes great play about giving extra funds of far less than that to the Health Service. Given the underfunding of the National Health Service and the great public concern about that, is it not right that hospitals should have some exemption from these electricity charges?

Mr. Spicer: I do not know whether it is my place to engage in the question of the funding of the Health Service. If it is, I have to say that the Government have raised expenditure on the Health Service by almost 30 per cent. in real terms since we came to office. Let us get the context in which these things are being discussed. It is that expenditure of £22 billion is planned for next year, out of which this £8 million looks a rather small item.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Scottish Arts Council

Dr. Godman: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to meet the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council to discuss the level of funding for the arts in Scotland in 1988–89.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I met him informally recently. I have announced the Arts Council's grant in aid for 1988–89, and the council will now determine the share for Scotland.

Dr. Godman: Why is the Minister failing to invest in the arts in Glasgow in preparation for the City of Culture year, which will bring cultural prestige and tourist income not only to the city of Glasgow but to Scotland and to Great Britain as a whole?

Mr. Luce: I was pleased to have been able to choose Glasgow as the European City of Culture for 1990. One of the conditions for all the British cities that put in bids was that they should themselves be able to provide the resources for the City of Culture. I am glad that the city of Glasgow gave that undertaking as part of its bid. That was one of the many reasons why I chose Glasgow to undertake this task.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council, will he impress upon him the importance of providing the maximum assistance to Crawford arts centre in St. Andrews, which is under threat because the university is unable to continue its previous level of support?

Mr. Luce: The hon. and learned Gentleman has written to me on this matter and I know about the importance of the work in the Crawford arts centre. I shall draw this to the attention of the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it is for that council to determine whether it can give any help.

Lincolnshire and Humberside

Mr. Morley: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to meet the chairman of Lincolnshire and Humberside Arts to discuss the level of arts funding in Lincolnshire and Humberside in 1988–89.

Mr. Luce: I met the chairman of Lincolnshire and Humberside Arts on 3 December during my visit to the region.

Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that a delay in letting Lincolnshire and Humberside arts association know what its budget is to be for the forthcoming year can cause tremendous problems in its planning strategy? Is he further aware that the whole calculation of the grant to the Lincolnshire and Humberside arts association means that it is discriminated against because the Arts Council formula is based on population? This area is one of small scattered communities, and small organisations such as the Humberside dance project are put at a disadvantage because of this sort of calculation and because of a delay in giving the figures.

Mr. Luce: When I visited the area two weeks ago I was impressed by the work of the regional arts association. It does an excellent job and has already drawn up a regional development plan for the arts, drawing together the strands of the local authorities and the arts bodies and those of the regional arts association itself. Against the background of three-year funding which is now to be introduced, the regional arts association for that area will feel that it can help the arts bodies to plan ahead, to diversify their sources of funding and to become more self-reliant. I am confident that against the background of a


53 per cent. increase in real terms of resources available to the association in the last eight years its case will be carefully considered by the Arts Council.

Cultural Co-operation

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to further European cultural co-operation.

Mr. Luce: I attended an informal meeting in Copenhagen last week of European Community Ministers responsible for cultural affairs. This provided a useful exchange of views on a variety of matters which are to be considered subsequently in more detail at official level. In September I attended the fifth conference of Council of Europe Ministers responsible for cultural affairs in Portugal, at which public and private funding of the arts was the major topic.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's bilateral co-operation with our EEC partners, including Greece, is in good repair? In view of the great budgetary pressures on the EEC, will he discourage grandiose and expensive schemes from Europe which would pre-empt large national contributions?

Mr. Luce: I can confirm that bilateral relations in respect of cultural affairs with all our European partners seem to be in good order. So far as the wider front of Community action is concerned, I agree with my hon. Friend's comments that we do not gain, either in this country or elsewhere, from vast grandiose schemes in the European Community. However, there are certain matters, for example, sponsorship and heritage conservation, where we can all gain from co-operation. I am glad that, as a result of the meeting last week, we agreed that we should take the pragmatic and practical approach to these matters.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In encouraging European cultural co-operation, will the Minister give an assurance that he will not overlook the needs of minority cultures, particularly Gaelic in Scotland and Welsh in Wales?

Mr. Luce: These matters have come up from time to time and they featured last week. It is worth making the point that a resolution was passed during the British presidency a year ago supporting the idea that money should he made available for translations of works, particularly from minority communities. I hope that that will be a contribution.

Mr. Cormack: Has my right hon. Friend thought of getting all the European Ministers for Arts and Culture together to persuade the Finance Ministers that we in Britain have by far the best system of VAT when it comes to literature and reading matter?

Mr. Luce: That point is already well understood, but I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Tony Banks: Given that, in our imperialist past, we looted many of the art treasures of Europe and brought them here—I am thinking primarily of the Parthenon marbles — does the Minister think that it is now appropriate to initiate a general discussion between Culture Ministers in Europe to try to eliminate the legacy of bitterness brought about by that theft? Does he further

agree that arrangements could perhaps be made for a civilised exchange of various national art treasures looted from one European country by another?

Mr. Luce: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the oceans of the world would be extremely busy in all directions if we were to fulfil what he is advocating. It is not just a matter of objects of art in this country which, for one reason or another, originated from other countries. The same applies to many other parts of the world. If we start down that road, where shall we end?

Arts Council

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss the base budgets of the Arts Council's major clients for 1988–89.

Mr. Luce: It is for the Arts Council to determine the allocation of its grant-in-aid between individual arts bodies. The chairman will keep me informed of the council's decisions.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister confirm that, when the £5 million in this year's settlement which is earmarked for touring and incentive funding has been deducted, the Arts Council, when deciding how to distribute the money, will have a very small sum? Does he further agree that the impact of this for major clients, such as the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company, will mean that they will probably get no more than a 2 per cent. increase this year, which will be a cut in real terms? Is that the measure of success of the so-called triumph of the Minister's budget settlement?

Mr. Luce: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to be changing his tune a little from last time, when he appeared to welcome the settlement. I would have thought that an increase of 10 per cent. in the next financial year was a substantial increase. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the Arts Council, he will see that they will go up from nearly £139 million to £150 million—an increase of £11 million—in the coming financial year, of which £5 million will be taken for incentive funding and touring. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that as a good settlement, I am not quite sure what he would see as a good one.

Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the main source of financial strength for the Arts Council's major clients is not only the splendid settlement that he obtained for grants to the Arts Council for the coming year, with its warmly welcomed increase of 10 per cent., but the growth in the British economy over the past eight years? It has meant that more people who want to see performances can pay for tickets.

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. Looking to the next three years, it is an extremely important point. The challenge that I am putting down to arts organisations all around the country is that, with three-year funding, they can look to their third year, not just the next year, and plan their long-term finances. The more professional they are, the more positive they are with regard to marketing policies, and the more successful they are in encouraging the public to go and enjoy their actitivies, the more income they will raise from other sources and the more


encouragement they will get from incentive funding. This is the direction in which we are going so that we may encourage greater self-reliance for the arts world.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Job Satisfaction

Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how he intends to make the work of civil servants more effective and rewarding.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): A great deal is already being done to make civil servants' work even more effective. A number of major reforms are directed towards this end, including development of the financial management initiative, departmental budgeting systems, a new staff appraisal system, and the scrutiny approach to reviewing activities.

Mr. Butler: I accept what my right hon. Friend has said. How will the taxpayer benefit from value from money gained from such reforms?

Mr. Luce: One supremely important example is the efficiency scrutinies that have been carried out over the past several years. They have led to recurring savings of £300 million a year. Many scrutinies are being carried out each year, and that improvement is increasing all the time in terms of value for money for the consumer.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: What is the Minister doing about performance-related pay? Does he accept that in the National Audit Office it has been of particular value in being able to get a rather wider range of pay, depending on the kind of work that is performed?

Mr. Luce: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Although it is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is important to re-state the value that we attach to performance-related pay. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, for the first time we are introducing performance-related discretionary awards for senior grades 2 and 3. Performance bonuses are already being allocated from grade 2 down to grade 7. The three-year experiment will be completed at the end of this financial year. We shall have to decide how to proceed from there. The principle of performance-related pay is now well accepted within the Civil Service.

Mr. Stokes: I realise the steps that have been taken by my right hon. Friend under his great stewardship. Does he agree that one of the best ways of encouraging individual performance is to give each person an individual task and objective and then to praise and reward him when he has done them well?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we have now introduced the staff appraisal system, which enables individuals all the way through the bulk of the Civil Service to determine in an open way with their senior managers their objectives and what is expected of them and then to appraise their overall achievements. The principle of giving some discretionary award to those who have an outstanding contribution to make and whose performance has been outstanding is the right principle to encourage.

Dr. Marek: Does the Minister agree that the work of the Crown Suppliers is effective, rewarding and certainly

provides value for money? Does he agree also that morale is low at present because of the intention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), to try to privatise the agency for reasons relating to political dogma? Will he inquire into the matter, ask for the views of the head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Robert Armstrong, and, after that, have a quiet word with his hon. Friend?

Mr. Luce: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's advice, which I shall consider, but I am not sure whether I shall react to it in that way. I agree that the Crown Suppliers do an excellent job. We are concerned to ensure that the service is managed in such a way that we get the best possible value for money for the taxpayer from the management of that service, and we are concerned at all times with the quality of the service that it offers the public. There are different ways in which such management can take place. No doubt those matters are being examined in that context.

Management Development

Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress is being made in the improvement of management development in the Civil Service.

Mr. Luce: Since 1984 we have set up a framework of management development programmes, which include staff at all levels from executive officer to grade 3, and good progress is being made.

Mr. Cran: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he indicate the Government's priorities in providing management development courses for staff at appropriate grades within the Civil Service?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. Training in the Civil Service is a matter of the highest importance if we are to meet the requirements of good value for money, the highest possible standards of professionalism—which we have — and good quality service to the public. The courses, including courses at a very senior level, range from the new top management programme—a six-week course — to the senior management development programme, and the management development programme itself, for more junior staff. All those courses, and many others, are designed to ensure that we have the highest possible standards within our service.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give an assurance that no one involved in the management stucture of civil servants will be involved in training people so that they can be beaten until they beg for mercy? Will there be any way in which anyone in the Civil Service at management level will be able to establish whether a chief constable is sane?

Mr. Luce: My responsibilities are for the Civil Service, and I propose to maintain my responsibility for that and go no wider.

Mr. Cormack: As gamekeepers undoubtedly make the best poachers, would it not be a good idea if we could ballot the Civil Servants in the House, so that a given number of hon. Members could use the services of an expert civil servant for a year, to goad Ministers?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is in a very innovative mood today, and I owe it to him to consider carefully what he has said.

Mr. John Garrett: Has the Minister read the address by Sir Robert Armstrong to the conference of the Royal Institute of Public Administration last week, saying how unhappy he was with the level of morale in the Civil Service? What point is there in spending money on management development when Ministers so often villify the Civil Service and take as their main aim its reduction in numbers?

Mr. Luce: It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that Ministers villify the Civil Service. The fact that there has been a reduction in the numbers of civil servants by about 18 per cent. is not a criticism by Ministers of the Civil Service, but follows from a requirement that we rightly set ourselves in 1979, when we said that the Civil Service was too large and that we needed to reduce Government functions. Side by side with increased efficiency in the Civil Service we said that numbers should be reduced. That is not a reflection on the calibre of the Civil Service, which is a slimmed-down and professional service.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is management development influenced by pay, and are the rates of pay for civil servants now the same as those in the private sector for equal work?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are now introducing into the Civil Service a much more flexible pay scheme which takes into account the need to ensure adequate recruitment, retention and motivation of civil servants. To that end, we have a more flexible system which allows us to provide more for specialist groups who otherwise may leave the service. That flexible system is leading to better results.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Touring Companies

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage touring companies to perform more in the regions.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I have included a contribution towards the cost of additional regional touring in the Arts Council's grant-in-aid for 1988–89 and the two succeeding years.

Mr. Bowis: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Will he underline the fact that many of the

quality touring companies are based in the regions and provinces as well as London? Will he request that, when such companies tour the country, they contact local education authorities to ensure that they can contribute to the education of the area in which they perform?

Mr. Luce: I agree that touring must not be seen as a one-way business out of London. Rather, it should be regarded as a two-way business. Excellence in the arts in parts of the country other than London should be available to the regions and London. That is the purpose of the proposals for more touring that are being developed by the Arts Council. My hon. Friend knows that I have set aside more money for touring to ensure that excellence in the arts is available to as many people as possible in as many parts of the country as possible.

Glasgow

Mr. Buchan: To ask the Minister for the Arts what further support he intends to give towards Glasgow as City of Culture in 1990.

Mr. Luce: The city authorities have undertaken to provide enough money themselves to finance a substantial and varied programme of events.

Mr. Buchan: When the Minister says that Glasgow has been given City of Culture status on condition that no Government money is forthcoming, will he bear in mind that, in 1989, Paris will be spending considerably more than he will allow in Glasgow and that it will not be rate capped? Will he do one thing which will not cost him money—persuade his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to allow the city borrowing powers so that it can go ahead with the concert hall which is so much needed?

Mr. Luce: I am aware of the anxiety that has been expressed about the plans for the concert hall and I realise that recent proposals have come to nothing so far. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is sympathetic to the problem and that he is waiting for the alternative proposals which might be put forward with a view possibly to constructing a concert hall. As for the city of Glasgow, I repeat that the condition upon which I accepted nominations from cities to qualify as European City of Culture was that they should provide their own resources. I admired Glasgow for saying that it would do that, and it has achieved that aim.

Retail Price Index (Miscalculation)

Mr. Michael Meacher: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the recently announced miscalculation in the compilation of the retail price index as a result of computer error.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I regret that, in 1985, a mistake was made in one of the programmes for computerising the monthly compilation of the retail prices index. As a result, both the level of the index and the year-on-year inflation rate have in most months from February 1986 to October 1987 been understated, on average by about one tenth of 1 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled hopes to make a statement to the House later this week on the action to be taken in line with the principle that the Exchequer should not benefit from the effects on social security expenditure.
The computer programme error has now been put right, and I believe our calculation system to be wholly correct. I am however, asking the head of Government statistical service to review it.

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this new system of calculation is the direct result of the cost-cutting Rayner review of the Government's statistical service in 1982–83, which was designed to cut the number of statisticians by one third from 1,430 in May 1979 to 960 in April 1984? What is the point of installing computers if the number or calibre of statisticians employed to use them is cut so much that fundamental errors such as this are made? Does this not show that the Government's cost cutting, so far from improving efficiency, is often a false economy?
Why, when the right hon. Gentleman's officials round the figures, do they alway seem to round them down rather than up, knowing that millions of pensioners and others on benefit will be deprived of the full increase in line with the cost of living, which is their legal right?
The Secretary of State has said that pensioners and the severely disabled will be compensated. I should like to know whether full compensation will be paid to them in a lump sum bonus before Christmas. Why will this compensation not extend to all other persons in receipt of other benefits that the Government are under a statutory obligation fully to uprate in line with inflation —especially widows, the unemployed, the sick, the war and industrial disabled and those receiving maternity allowance, attendance allowance, invalid care allowance and mobility allowance, including their dependants?
As tax allowances and index-linked savings have also been under-calculated, are not the Government obliged under the statutory indexation provisions and the Rooker-Wise amendment to recompense others who have lost out, such as those with national savings and occupational pensioners? Will they all be contacted and repaid?
Finally, the Secretary of State has said that supplementary pensioners whose benefit is not statutorily index-linked will be compensated. We welcome that statement, and believe that that principle is right. If pensioners on supplementary benefit are compensated, however, why should not others on supplementary benefit, whose need is just as great, be compensated as well? As

there are no lengths to which the Government will not go to claw back money from those whom they allege have been overpaid, surely they must now be even-handed in repaying all whom they have short-changed?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has it entirely wrong; and not untypically. First, the miscalculation has nothing to do with staff cuts. His assertion that it has is entirely wrong. It is the result of a simple human error, which we regret, but it does not stem from staff cuts. There was a computer programme error. If I may put it this way, there was a computer programme designed for Socialist inflation. In other words, the programme missed out everything after the decimal point. That might have been all right when inflation was running at 20 per cent.—it might not have mattered then—but now that it is down to 4 per cent. it is obvious that such a fault will have an effect.
It seems that the hon. Gentleman insists on refighting all the social security battles of four years ago. He should remember that the greatest clawback fidddle was perpetrated by the last Labour Government, who changed the basis of the uprating from historic to forecast. Pensioners lost £1 billion, and they never got it back.
I repeat that the Exchequer will not gain from the social security underpayment. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, who is seated on the Treasury Bench, will be making a statement on this issue later in the week. The average retirement pensioner has lost so far about £2, which is about 5p per week. For the financial year 1987–88, he will lose £2·60. For the financial year 1988–89, he will lose £5·20 if we do nothing about the miscalculation. However, we do intend to do something about it, and we shall be making special extra payments to national insurance retirement pensioners, supplementary pensioners and the severely disabled. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the way in which the special extra payments are to be made.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people will welcome the prompt way in which the Government have announced that the miscalculation will be rectified? It is right that pensioners should be recompensed for any marginal error that has been made, but does he agree that the position is rather different from that of many social security beneficiaries who move in and out of entitlement? Does he agree also that it would be wrong if the miscalculation were to be used as an opportunity further to extend the payments for which Parliament has provided? Does he not think that it is rich to hear what we have from the Opposition, because, if anyone short-changed recipients of social security benefit and pensioners, it was they during periods of high inflation?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: no one stole more from pensioners than the Labour Government, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) knows it. We are seeking to put the mistake right as soon as possible. The point that my hon. Friend makes about people moving in and out of benefit is right. People will believe it is entirely sensible that we should seek to recompense pensioners.

Mr. James Wallace: It appears that the error took place some two and a half years ago,


in 1985. What changes has the Secretary of State made to arrangements for checking computer programmes in future so that they do not go so long again without checking? He said that the Treasury will not benefit from the error. Is the import of what he said in response to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that some citizens will still lose because of the error?

Mr. Fowler: I shall have to ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the social security statement. I have made it clear that we will seek to make special payments to the pledged beneficiaries; those include the people to whom I have referred. The error itself came to light as part of one of our regular checks. I believe that the system is correct now, but, as I said, a review is being made to check just that.

Mr. Ian Gow: If, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) suggests, my right hon. Friend was part of a conspiracy to defraud the poor, why is it that my right hon. Friend, the moment he discovered the error, confessed it publicly and has made a statement in the House today?

Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We are by this time used to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (M r. Meacher); he normally manages to blow any opportunity that is given to him.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Secretary of State explain why this error went unnoticed for 21 months? It seems an extraordinary length of time. In anticipation of the DHSS statement, can he make a straightforward statement now that no one will lose because of the mistake? The Government are dealing with the poorest of the poor. If he cannot make that statement, it means that, because of their incompetence, the Government are about to chisel some of the poorest in the country.

Mr. Fowler: I will not try to pre-empt the statement that my hon. Friend will make. What I have said is that the Exchequer will not gain from the social security underpayment. That is a firm pledge by the Government. I have also said that special extra payments will be made to national insurance retirement pensioners, supplementary pensioners and the severely disabled, but for the rest the hon. Gentleman must wait for the statement.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public would much rather have a 0·09 per cent. inflation error from this Government than the 26 per cent. inflation rate they had under the Labour Government? If my right hon. Friend discovers, in looking for the source of the error, that the programme was written to anticipate the return of a Labour Government and to

concentrate on the big figures rather than the decimal points, will he instruct the programmers that such an eventuality is unlikely?

Mr. Fowler: That I confirm. My announcement on Friday was that inflation had come down to just over 4 per cent. and could well come down further. We are comparing that with an inflation rate in the Labour Government's term of office of over 20 per cent. Nothing did more damage than that to pensioners' standards of living.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Although the Secretary of State is attempting to minimise the error, I think that the House recognises that several million pounds are involved. May I remind the Minister that when people default payment of income tax, interest is charged? I wonder, therefore, whether calculations and attempts will be made by the Minister to ensure that the money goes back to the people who are entitled to it? While I am on this point, I want to inquire about another group which has not been mentioned so far—students and student grants. Students are on miserable rates of pay. Will they be included in the calculations for improvements?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that the RPI has anything to do with students' grants. I have announced clearly, I hope, that the Exchequer will not gain from social security underpayment. I have also drawn, as is only fair, the distinction made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) between pensioners and those moving in and out of benefit. The Government do not draw back from that distinction.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members will think that he has come forward very quickly to admit the error? That is a good thing for a Minster to do. Does he also accept that many of us who have been told that computers are infallible have now learnt that they can make human mistakes? Does that mean that in future we do not have to accept that computers are infallible and that they are almost as bad as human beings?

Mr. Fowler: What one gets out of a computer obviously depends on what one puts in. If the programme has been written incorrectly, incorrect information will obviously come from the computer. That is precisely what happened. I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I remind the House that there will be a further opportunity to question Ministers later in the week. I have noted carefully those hon. Members who have been rising and who have not been called.

Points of Order

Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the composition of the Standing Committee to consider the Health and Medicines Bill. The Committee has 18 members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) from the Opposition Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) from the Labour Back Benches. They will offer the Committee a great deal of expertise. Unfortunately, there is no Scottish Office Minister among the 18 Committee members. Indeed, there is no Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament on the Committee.
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, the Health and Medicines Bill contains a great deal of controversial matter. It introduces charges and affects in a number of ways the structure of the Health Service and how it operates. Normally, we have separate Scottish legislation on the Health Service because there is a distinct tradition and a very different structure in primary health care and hospitals in Scotland. It is very important that there is a Minister in the Standing Committee to deal with the Scottish dimension. Can you, Mr. Speaker, offer any remedy in the interests of proper scrutiny of legislation and in the interests of Parliament?
I notice that the Scottish Office Minister in charge of the Health Service announced in the press the other day that he was
only too happy to … discuss the concerns expressed over the future of the NHS
by the president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. I very much welcome that. However, it is equally important—and even more important for the House — that the Minister appears in the Standing Committee to debate the issues affecting the future operation of the Health Service in Scotland. It is deplorable that he does not intend to do that. Is there any remedy or any way in which, you, Mr. Speaker, can help to safeguard the parliamentary processes in those circumstances?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The remedy is for the hon. Gentleman to take the matter up with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I have no role in the matter, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Mr. Max Madden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the proper action for the hon. Gentleman to take.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember on Thursday that you were good enough to call me during business

questions when I referred to an early-day motion that I have tabled asking for a proportion of the profits from the Refreshment Department to be donated to the Ethiopian famine appeal. In reply, the Leader of the House suggested that that was a matter for the House of Commons Commission. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are the head of the House of Commons Commission. I would therefore be very grateful for your advice on how I can attempt to raise the matter with you. Would it be possible for some resolution to be put before the House so that a Division can be secured on the matter? If not, I can see no way in which I can raise this matter effectively with you and the House of Commons Commission.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I replied to his letter and made a suggestion. It is a matter for the Commission, but I think it unlikely that the Commission will meet again before Christmas. I hope that his suggestion can be resolved on the lines that I suggested to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Maxton: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have dealt with that.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot say more.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I have put together four statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

EDUCATION (MANDATORY AWARDS)

That the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1261) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

SCHOOL GOVERNMENT

That the Education (School Government) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1359) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS

That the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1433) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (FEES)

That the draft Department of Trade and Industry (Fees) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Question agreed to.

Unemployment

Mr. Bob Clay: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the continuing level of unemployment in the United Kingdom and its devastating effect on individuals and communities in the North, Scotland, Wales, Merseyside, inner London, the Midlands and many other areas; believes that temporary schemes provide no permanent solution but instead pose an increasing threat of conscription into enforced cheap labour; further notes that recent events in Britain and around the world threaten further increases in unemployment and demonstrate the fundamental instability of the casino economies with their continuing cycles of boom and slump which cannot be fundamentally solved by adjustment in exchange rates, interest rates, privatisations or market forces; therefore calls for the adoption of socialist policies which place human need before profit, such as a massive expansion of socially useful jobs and services and a major reduction in working time, including a 35 hour week, longer holidays, earlier retirement and similar measures; and believes that this can only be achieved by public investment and ownership subject to democratic control, thus enabling the majority of people in communities and in regions, in workplaces and in national enterprises to plan a society of full employment.
I am grateful for this opportunity, because I believe that the topic of unemployment has begun to be seen as something of a bore by the Government, and perhaps by some of their supporters. There is a danger that the view will begin to get around that the present disgraceful levels of unemployment are a permanent, God-given state of affairs. There is also a danger that unemployment will be seen and presented, especially by the Government and their supporters, as a local difficulty in one or two areas that can be massaged and marginally helped through certain schemes.
Although my own region in the north, to which I shall make several references, has the highest unemployment in Great Britain, I recognise that unemployment is not a local problem. Throughout the country there are similar problems, in some cases nearly as bad as those in the north.
It is interesting to read the document produced by the Library, last updated on 19 November, which lists unemployment by constituency in a league table. I note, for instance, that, according to the latest calculations, the highest unemployment in any British constituency is not in the north, the north-west or inner London, but in Birmingham, Small Heath. Another Birmingham constituency, Ladywood, has a fifth highest unemployment level. A number of Glasgow constituencies appear on the list: Maryhill, Central, Provan and Springburn. They come eighth, ninth, 10th and 11th, respectively. Sheffield, Central comes sixth.
Even London, which some regard as part of the prosperous south — the area that is, according to the Government, flowing with milk and honey—is well up in the first 30, with constituencies such as Bethnal Green and Stepney, Islington, North, Bow and Poplar, Vauxhall, Hackney, South and Shoreditch and Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. Inner London as a whole, which has a population of approximately 2·5 million—roughly the same as that of the entire northern region—had 175,000 unemployed at the last count. That is a rate of 14·4 per cent., nearly as high as the current northern rate.
Some will say that that appalling position is now being ameliorated by the creation of some new jobs. Occasionally, there are announcements of new inward

investment, even in regions as badly hit as mine. However, even today's announcement of new jobs from Nissan, some of which had already been announced as part of the phase 2 go-ahead given last year—I comment on that because I am sure that the Minister will; and, of course, every new job is more than welcome, and desperately needed — will bring the number of new jobs in my borough since 1980 to a total of slightly below 6.000. That compares with confirmed redundancies for the same period, according to the Department of Employment figures, of 22,938. Despite the inward investment, such as it is, and despite whatever new jobs have been created, there is a net loss of jobs in the borough of Sunderland of 16,000. That shows the scale of the problem with which we are faced.
In the Tyne and Wear area, of which Sunderland is a part, since 1979, when the Government were elected, until August 1987, the total number of confirmed redundancies was 98,784. With the recent closure that was announced at Huwoods, which made mining machinery, and the shipyard redundancies on the Tyne that have been announced, there will have been over 100,000 job losses. There is no sign that the problem is going away, and I am sure that the same difficulties prevail in many other parts of Britain.
The notion that the Government are trying to perpetrate — that we have a strengthening enterprise culture that relies on the private sector to provide jobs where the public sector has allegedly failed—is a myth. I could prove that with regard to my area, and 1 am sure that many other examples could be given from other parts of the country.
Our shipbuilding industry—the merchant building part of which is in public ownership — has contracted dreadfully, but at least there is some merchant shipbuilding left. The way in which the mining industry has contracted is appalling, but at least some of it is still left.
In my constituency, the failures of private enterprise are littered all around us. One of the major shipbuilding yards left in Britain, the Pallion yard, would not be there now were it not for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who, in a previous incarnation in 1975, faced with the collapse of Court Line Ltd. — a private enterprise company that had been milking its shipbuilding, repairing and marine engine interests to prop up a holiday company — took that yard arid other shipbuilding facilities into public ownership. That is the only reason why Pallion is still there now.
Plessey, which is a massive multinational company, is pulling out of Sunderland, killing off 3,500 jobs; that is the act of a ruthless multinational company. In the past couple of years a major private sector firm, Camrex Ltd., which had been in the area for 100 years and was a marine company, was bought out by a multinational company, Ruberoid plc, which then discovered that Canadian Pacific Ltd. had an insurance claim against Camrex, and deliberately bankrupted it, thus causing a massive loss of jobs to avoid a fairly dubious insurance claim.
Joplings foundry, which was another historic company in my constituency, was bought two years ago by an entrepreneur in the mould that Conservative Members praise to the hilt as an example of the new, dynamic enterprise culture, Mr. Andrew Cook. He said: I will buy this foundry and I can guarantee jobs and work." Within


days he closed it and offered employees work in another of his factories in Leeds. Within weeks of some of them going to Leeds, they were told that they were being sacked.
Any empirical analysis of the history of private enterprise in my area, and in many others, shows that one cannot have faith in the private sector and that, inadequate though it is in many ways, it is only public enterprise that has maintained jobs in the area.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Surely there is empirical evidence that at least 13 Japanese companies have moved into the north-east region that unemployment in the northern region has dropped by 25,000 over the past year and that self-employment has doubled over the past four years. Are those figures myths?

Mr. Clay: I will not be distracted and tempted into that sort of statistical debate. The hon. Gentleman represents a region that still has a total unemployment rate of 17 per cent. with nearly 200,000 people unemployed. I find it incredible that he has the audacity to claim that things are in some way looking up. I anticipated that such comments would be made by Conservative Members, so I have already said that one has only to look at the net job losses compared with the net gains to see that there is massive net loss overall.

Ms. Clare Short: We all know that there has been a massive growth in self-employment. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the figures on the income of those who are self-employed show that the overwhelming bulk of them are on fantastically low incomes and that most have gone into self-employment through desperation rather than any great support for the enterprise economy that Conservative Members boast about?

Mr. Clay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Another myth is the notion that most people who are self-employed are prosperous and expanding business people. However, my hon. Friends and I deal with the reality. On advice, people have taken some grant, such as an enterprise allowance, and put their redundancy money into an effort that often collapes within a year. I do not have the figures to hand, but recent parliamentary questions have shown that a remarkable percentage of the businesses that are set up fail within 12 months and many more fail within two years. It may be a moving target: at any given time, certain people are self-employed but, as with many other forms of employment such as the temporary schemes, they do not feel secure for the future.
I want to argue strongly that, even on the Government's figures, allowing for the 17, 18 or 19 fiddles that have been used since 1979 and the inadequate temporary schemes, many of those who are seen as being permanently and properly in work are in a position that leaves much to be desired. Many of those people live in permanent fear of losing their job. The figures I have given for the Tyne and Wear area show 100,000 redundancies. However, I cannot believe that that is, 100,000 separate individuals. Concealed within those figures there will be people — I can give examples — who have been made redundant two or three times. Many people do not know from week to week whether their jobs will be safe. That is not a satisfactory way for people to live their lives.
Another major problem concealed within the statistics is the large number of people, the gastarbeiters, from the north of England who are working away from home. Labour Members will be familiar with those who come to their surgeries and advice sessions and say, "I have finally found a job. It is low paid and it is not satisfactory but at least it is a job. I have had to move 200 miles and I could not even put a deposit on a house in the south of England or London even if I sold my home in Sunderland." More and more people are having to work away from home and cannot afford to take their families with them. That is a growing problem and it is an indictment of the Conservative party, which claims to be the party of the family.
Many young people seek work in London because of the misery in the area from which they come. There is still an illusion that the streets of London are paved with gold. That is a component of the London housing crisis and shows how unemployment in one area feeds the social problems of another. The London borough of Camden contains the station of King's Cross, St. Pancras and Euston and is a significant borough in that many young people arrive there from the north, Merseyside, Scotland and other areas looking for work. That borough spent £17 million this year alone on providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is £17 million from a total housing budget of £66 million and a total revenue budget of £138 million. That is an extraordinary amount to spend on bedand-breakfast accommodation and is a classic example of how the London housing crisis is being fuelled by unemployment in other areas.
People in fear of losing their jobs because of bankruptcy, privatisation, takeover and rationalisation all form part of the figures the Government use to show how many people are in work. It is unreasonable and disgraceful that people should have to eke out their lives unable to make decisions about holidays, marriages, partnerships, buying homes or cars, buying consumer goods and furniture and supporting their children in higher education because the future of their employment is uncertain. Many working people in many areas are in that position.
Many of those who do not work not only face the problem of poverty but find that their health is affected. Recent surveys and statistical evidence have demonstrated that clearly. Richard Smith, the assistant editor of the British Medical Journal, detailed the link in a recent series of articles. He said:
The unemployed tend to be more anxious, depressed, unhappy, dissatisfied, neurotic and worried, and they have lower confidence and sleep worse than the employed.
K. A. Moser of City university studied the health of 6,000 unemployed men from 1971 to 1981. His figures show that, for every extra 100,000 unemployed men there will be 97 extra deaths among the men each year and 49 among their wives. If those calculations are correct, there have been many thousands of deaths as a result of unemployment since that time.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, I believe that she will speak about the temporary schemes. Therefore, I will not dwell on that for too long. However, I wish to comment on the notion that the community programme, youth training schemes and other Government schemes are some sort of solution. They are far from being a solution. I recall—I shall remember it


all my life—visiting Pallion Residents Enterprises in my constituency during the election campaign. It is a useful scheme. An old clothing factory has been rebuilt and it houses several training schemes, co-operatives and small businesses. I was asked questions by all of those who were working there on youth training schemes. It was the most extraordinary experience.
Those young people had no conception of what full-time permanent work meant. However much one tried to talk to them about policies that might some day, under a different Government, produce real long-term work for them, they showed no interest. They thought it was just pie-in-the-sky talk from politicians. They only wanted to ask questions about the different sorts of schemes. They asked what happened when one completed a scheme, how long it took to get on another scheme, what one scheme paid as opposed to another, how the different schemes could be improved, how they could move from YTS to the community programme and how that would affect their benefits. I was asked question after question and they were interested only in a world of schemes because that is what faces them as there are so few real jobs to be had.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clay: I will give way just this once.

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman take on board the fact that, 10 days ago, I opened two YTS buildings in the north-east of England? The buildings had been operational for some time. In one, 100 per cent. job success has been achieved with those trained in the building industry. In the other, 92 per cent. have been successful elsewhere. To suggest that children in the north-east of England have no concept of full-time employment is to say that none has ever met a school teacher.

Mr. Clay: I made it clear that I was relating my experience which, sadly, is a familiar one. At least there is some improvement in that the hon. Gentleman is making such illustrations. This contrasts with his performance during the past few years, which involved continually taking newspapers from Buckinghamshire, where he used to live, to his constituency and telling people to apply for the jobs advertised in them.

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clay: I said that I would give way once to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clay: No.
I remember the stories about some of the people who went on that fool's trail and were back within a few days. The hon. Gentleman did not publicise that as much as he publicised the advertisements.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order or a point of disagreement?

Mr. Holt: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not normal for an hon. Member who names another hon. Member in the way I have been named by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) to give way?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr Holt) intervened. I think that the hon. Member for

Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) disagreed with what he said. It is for the hon. Member for Langbaurgh to seek to take part in the debate later.

Mr. Clay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) once insulted Norman Lansbury a bus cleaner and a personal friend of mine, whom I had known for years when I lived in that constituency. The hon. Gentleman asked what a bus cleaner was doing as chair of a planning committee. Norman Lansbury did not have the opportunity to answer that point here, so the hon. Gentleman was lucky to be allowed one intervention.

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clay: One of the obscenities of such high unemployment is that many people are overworking. I am not one of those who always calls for work, as though work were a virtue, a necessity and a perfect way of life. I recognise that work literally kills — the health and safety statistics are appalling — and that many of the deaths and serious accidents are caused by the stress and fatigue resulting from overwork as well as many other factors. I recognise that a great deal of work is dirty, dangerous, boring, repetitive and tiresome. That is why it is absurd that many people are unemployed whereas many others are overworking. The simple and logical action is to redistribute the work.
As examples of overwork, I cite the disgraceful and tragic position of Northumbria ambulance drivers recently. Of the 78 drivers in the reorganised Sunderland and Washington division of the Northumbria ambulance service, two have died from heart disease in the past 18 months and four have left because of coronary-related diseases and are permanently sick. This happened because the ambulance drivers suffered appalling stress. That is a tragedy not only for them but for all those in the National Health Service who depend on the ambulances. Why do not the authorities shorten their hours? Why not have more ambulance men and a better service? it is estimated that, in the Northumbria ambulance service as a whole, there is a 22 per cent. rate of illness or vacancy related to stress.
What is the position with nurses, especially in some specialties? There are nurses who work for agencies contracted to the NHS as well as working their straight NHS contracts. There are nurses working double shifts. But, at the same time, there are people who would queue up for jobs as nurses if the wages were not so appalling, thanks to the Government. Part of the appalling crisis of the NHS is the obscenity of understaffing while those nurses who are working work hours that cannot conceivably be safe for them, let alone for their patients.

Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clay: I want to continue.

Mr. Janman: It is one small point.

Mr. Clay: The hon. Gentleman should try to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker.
The problems illustrated in the NHS apply to many types of shiftwork and to much of the public services. I remember, having worked in public transport, the ludicrous hours worked, with people starting work one week at half past 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning, driving through rush hour traffic in cities or rural areas, then


starting work another week at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, with their body clocks wrecked. This applies to many workers. It is ludicrous that in a modern society the people who work such shifts do not have their hours of work dramatically reduced.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Clay: That is why the present position in the coal industry is so important and why it is essential that Arthur Scargill succeeds in his campaign to be re-elected as president of the NUM. Essentially, he is fighting on that front and saying that it is ludicrous that miners should be asked to work longer shifts and a six-day week when, more than any other group, they should be talking about shorter shifts and a four-day week.
It is obscene that hon. Members on either side of the House — although, of course, it comes from Conservative Members—should pooh-pooh any of these suggestions when they have goodness knows how many months holiday a year. They do not even start until half past 2 in the afternoon, so they can go moonlighting in the morning, and work one of the shortest weeks in society. It is a central hypocrisy of society that the people who make the legislation can pay so little attention to the hours and conditions of others.
It is ironic that people in this country, which has the highest unemployment, work longer hours than any similar countries. Some interesting points about the length of time worked emerge from the International Labour Organisation statistics for the last year for which figures are available. The average working week of full-time employees in the United Kingdom was 42·8 hours in 1985, which includes overtime. The figures in other countries were: Canada 32.5 hours; United States 34·9 hours; Belgium 33·3 hours; and Spain — which, until recently, was regarded as one of the poorer countries of Europe —39·1 hours, nearly three hours less than in the United Kingdom. Even in West Germany, the allegedly hardworking industrious Germans put in an average week of 40·7 hours—more than two hours less than in the United Kingdom. In Australia it was 34·5 hours and in New Zealand 39·2 hours. There is not a significant country, whether the United States, or in Australasia, or western Europe, that compares with Britain.
One clear way to start to reduce unemployment in this country is to reduce working hours. It is a matter not just of reducing the working week but of providing longer holidays, earlier retirement on proper pay, and sabbaticals. Why can only a few people — usually the allegedly "well-educated", "professional" people — say that every five or even every 10 years they need a year out to think about things, to recharge their batteries, to go in a new direction and to reflect? Why should not those who work with their hands, get dirty, who risk their lives, go through the sweats—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has already been speaking for half an hour in a short debate. Would it not be fair if he gave way to others?

Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to curtail speeches. However, this is a half-day debate and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, wish to take part.

Mr. Clay: Why should not all workers in our society have time off on pay — especially as we have high unemployment? A training programme that allowed people to take a year out on full pay at any time in their life to contemplate a different occupation or search for a new career would be a training programme that was worth looking at.
We can look to the European labour movement not only for examples of shorter hours but for examples of how to achieve them. As someone who was once naive enough to believe that the labour movement in West Germany was moderate, tame and employer-oriented, I was interested to learn that, as a result of a successful strike in 1984, IG Metall, the German steel and engineering worker's union managed to reduce its members' working week from 40 hours to 38½ hours and thus to create 100,000 jobs. Since then, the union has negotiated a 37-hour working week, which puts them well ahead of us. Nevertheless, it is preparing to launch another big offensive in the new year to achieve a 35-hour week. On the union's calculations, that will create another 100,000 jobs, which the union desperately needs.
One has only to look at recent press reports—for example, in The Guardian last Friday and in The Observer on Sunday—to discover the action that is being taken by German workers to protect jobs. The workers at a steel mill in Rheinhausen, which the Krupp company is attempting to close, are taking action. It is interesting to note that at Rheinhausen, in Duisburg, the steel complex of the Ruhr, steel jobs have been reduced from 58,000 to 40,000. The workers are saying, "That is enough." The steel industry in this country, and in many others, has been slashed to a much greater extent than that. Unfortunately, we have yet to see resistance such as the steelworkers in the Ruhr are putting up. The Guardian article states:
Throughout the Ruhr, steelmen, supported by miners, teachers, postal workers and public service employees, blocked motorway access routes, occupied bridges across the Rhine, and set up road blocks, to demonstrate that the closure of the Krupp mill, with the loss of 6,000 jobs, would spell the beginning of the 'slow death of the Ruhr'.
In Rheinhausen, Duisberg, and in seven other cities, shops, pubs, and cafes remained closed, schoolchildren were given the day off, post deliveries were scrapped and policemen helped to guide demonstrators and onlookers through the road blocks in an unprecedented display of solidarity.
This comes from the moderate German working class.
Mr. Frank Kwasny, a welder, said his trade union would not allow 'workers to be divided, as they were in Britain. We will stand together.' The Krupp management and political leaders have been somewhat taken aback by the unprecedented radicalism of the protesters, who earlier this week stormed the Villa Hugel, in Essen, the mansion that was once the home of the Krupp steel barons. About 60 protesters stormed into Hamburg stock exchange … throwing eggs and tomatoes, before traders repulsed them with a fire extinguisher, a spokesman said.
We have some lessons to learn from the German working class, and not for the first time. The Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund, the West German equivalent of the TUC, calculates in a very useful pamphlet called "Arbeit für Alle", which means work for everyone, that a 35-hour week throughout West Germany would create 1·4 million jobs. West Germany's working week is already two hours shorter than ours and its experience tells us about the number of jobs that could be created—not just by a shorter working week. If we had a shorter working week of 35 hours or thereabouts, reductions in hours for shift workers, earlier retirement on reasonable pay for those in


the most strenuous jobs and sabbaticals, we would reduce unemployment. That package of measures alone could reduce real unemployment by more than half.

Mr. David Sumberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clay: No, I want to get on.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members are complaining that my hon. Friend is going on for too long. It is his debate, and if he wanted to, he could speak for the entire time allowed and hon. Members could do nothing about it. He is perfectly entitled to do that.

Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely correct, but I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) will bear in mind that many of his own colleagues wish to participate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is a very good speech.

Mr. Clay: My speech would have been a few minutes shorter had there not been so many interventions, Mr. Speaker. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has referred to the number of hours worked in West Germany and to the possibility of even fewer hours being worked. Will he bear in mind that, although the West Germans work fewer hours than the British, West Germany has a balance of payments surplus of nearly $40 billion. The Labour party members who draw up the manifesto have not paid enough attention recently to reducing the number of hours worked, which would appeal to those in work and to those outside in the dole queue waiting for a job. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is drawing attention to that.

Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend has made the point that I was coming to far more eloquently than I could have done.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not about the length of speeches.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Opposition Members have shown that they do not especially wish to speak. Perhaps you will take that into account when calling Conservative Members, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Clay.

Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover referred to the extraordinary fact that, although the Germans work fewer hours, they have a massive balance of trade surplus. That was the point that I was coming to. I do not wish to dwell on it, It may be a subject for another debate and it has been discussed in the house before. It is extraordinary that, only a few weeks ago, some were arguing that popular capitalism and increased share ownership represented the answer to everything. They thought that the future looked rosy, but then came the crash that many people had expected. The slide in the dollar has made it more difficult for British companies to

export. All shipbuilding prices around the world are quoted in dollars, with the result that there has been a loss of competitiveness of about 25 per cent. for what is left of British shipbuilding since black Monday. That has affected my constituency and others.
Interest rates, oil prices and the pound are going up and down. When the pound goes up, it is good news for some and bad for others; when it goes down, it is good news for some and bad for others. The more that process continues, the more it demonstrates the instability of the system, which makes it quite impossible for enterprise to plan and for people to be secure. The final irony is that, according to today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, that great successful sector the City of London is predicting the loss of 50,000 jobs in the City as the result of the stock exchange crash. That figure was cited in The Daily Telegraph today. How much longer will this go on? That is the reality of the enterprise culture.
Many other things could be done to reduce unemployment. It would be useful for regions such as mine to have development agencies to cut through the bureaucracy facing what little investment there is at the moment. It would be useful if civil servants were dispersed more fairly round the country. It would he useful to have more generous and sensible Government grants. On that point, I take the opportunity to ask the Minister to comment on a piece in the Financial Times on 1 December this year headed
Britain plans to limit regional aid".
That will not be very helpful. The article says:
The new discretionary policy will be much more to the liking of the Treasury.
I am sure that if it will be more to the Treasury's liking it will mean less opportunity to create jobs in regions such as mine. I ask the Minister to come clean about the predictions in the Financial Times.
There are many policies which could produce more jobs in this country, but they depend on not leaving things to the private sector and the casino economy of the City. For example, it would make absolute sense to deal with the problem of acid rain, about which the Opposition have campaigned for so long. In September 1986, The Engineer calculated that if three flue gas de-acidification plants were manufactured in the United Kingdom, 30,000 man years' work would be created over a decade. Depending how one does the sums, that means about 3,000 jobs over 10 years. But that extraordinary opportunity is going begging due to the Government's lack of will.
So much needs to be done in our localities. A Government who consign so many people to full-time leisure through unemployment should allow local authorities to provide facilities. I compliment the much-maligned local authority in Liverpool which has built new leisure centres and swimming pools as well as housing. Instead of providing jobs in hypermarkets, which are springing up everywhere and competing with one another to sell consumer goods, we should build leisure complexes, libraries, and so on, so that jobs are created in socially useful ways. Nurseries are also desperately needed. I recently attended the opening of a dial-a-ride service in my constituency. That is part of the community programme. Why are the drivers of minibuses, which provide such a marvellous service for the disabled, not regarded as doing real jobs because they are on the community programme? It is ridiculous to change the drivers every few years. Those jobs should be permanent employment for trained people.


Public transport could be extended in many ways to get over the ridiculous congestion on the roads and the waste of precious resources. We need more rapid transit systems —not the yuppie expressway specials being built in the London docklands and threatened in other places, but the type of system that we have in Tyne and Wear and for which people in Manchester and elsewhere are asking.
I make no apology for saying that I do not regard many of our traditional industries as sunset industries. With regard to shipbuilding, for instance, the shipping market analysts Detnorske Veritas recently calculated that 250 million tonnes would need to be built in the next decade to replace old and inefficient tonnage and that further expansion of world trade would probably require a further 150 million tonnes. That is 400 million tonnes in the next decade. If the Government would give British Shipbuilders enough assistance to obtain even 1 per cent. of that total, the remaining merchant ship yards in Britain would be employed beyond their present capacity and could be expanded. We also need new coal-fired power stations as the basis of a sane energy policy. I could give many more examples.
Before Conservative Members start asking the usual question, I will spend a couple of minutes explaining where the money is to come from. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has pointed out many times, when people start asking where the money is to come from, the real question is, "Where did the money go?" A Government who have allowed more than £70,000 million in capital to be transferred overseas since 1979 have a nerve asking the Opposition to explain themselves. I need not dwell on the wealth from North sea oil that has also been squandered. According to the July White Paper, which is available in the Library, in the last four years this country's net contribution to the Common Market has been £4,400 million. If we have that kind of money to spend on aid, we could do better than giving it to inefficient farmers. We should give it to the people of Ethiopia and Bangladesh and set up trading relationships with them which will benefit the British working class as well as those underdeveloped countries.
We live in an economic system in which the City of London can allegedly raise £5 billion for a private project to get people across the channel half an hour quicker. Why cannot the same amount be raised to build hospitals and schools and to create the work that we need? Whatever the various arguments about defence and weapons, whether nuclear or conventional, every million pounds spent on public transport, social services, teaching and other socially useful activities creates more jobs than if it is spent on conventional weapons, let alone nuclear weapons. Scrapping Trident is thus another way to create a great many jobs. We could then provide proper conversion programmes so that people at Swan Hunter and Barrow are not thrown out of work but have jobs which make full use of their skills in a socially useful way.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It is interesting that the Government are prepared to hive off jobs in public enterprise but when it comes to defence, which they and their Back Benchers regard as so important, they retain public ownership. They have not decided to sell off the Army to Securicor—

Ms. Clare Short: Give them time!

Mr. Cryer: —because the Government know, as we know, that the best way to organise facilities is through public ownership.

Mr. Clay: Again, my hon. Friend made the point more effectively than J could. As every Opposition Member knows, at whatever level one pitches it, the amount given away in tax handouts year after year to the very rich and super-rich would go a long way to fund the expansion of work and a return to full employment.
Above all, we must ask ourselves the following question. On recent figures—there is little dispute about this—more than half the money sloshing around in the City of London casino comes in one way or another from pension funds — deferred wages and salaries deducted week by week and month by month from working people's pay. Why have those people no democratic say in what happens to their pension funds? The simplest way to institute widespread public ownership would be to give those people the right to say that their contributions should not be invested in South Africa or in Californian real estate, or in oil when the contributors are coal miners, but in activities that will create jobs and develop industry in this country and in useful projects abroad. That can be achieved only if there is the will to take control of those financial institutions and to give people the democratic right to plan the use of their own money.
Finally, while we are considering where the money is to come from, we must consider the cost of unemployment. The unemployment unit, a highly reputable and reliable organisation, has calculated the cost of keeping people out of work. For the three constituencies in the borough of Sunderland, the cost is £161 million per year — £48 million in Houghton and Washington, £62 million in Sunderland, North, and £51 million in Sunderland, South. That is the cost of keeping people unemployed in terms of lost taxation, lost insurance contributions and the cost of benefits paid. That total of £161 million is more than the net revenue spending of the borough of Sunderland in a year. We are paying more to keep people unemployed than we are spending on education, social services and all the other things that the council has to do. That is the clearest evidence of the obscenity of maintaining people unemployed and then having the audacity to ask where the money will come from to do something about the situation.
It is perfectly possible to return to full employment. It is a question of the will and the policies and it comes down to an old Socialist philosophy. Humankind can put men on the moon, can carry out heart and lung transplants and can at least play around with the notion of star wars, SDI, and go to such advanced frontiers of technology. Why not use that technology to organise human relationships in a way that will ensure that people do not die of overwork and underwork and to create a society of full employment?
Britain's unemployment is the most appalling indictment of the Government and the capitalist system they stand for. The clearest illustration of the need for Socialism is the obscene situation of a world in crisis, millions starving and a mountain of misery at the dole queues while others are dying and becoming sick from overwork. It would be simple to organise society if it were not for the class interests represented by Conservative Members. If that were done, all the things that I have mentioned would be a miserable memory of the past.

The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has done the House a service by using his good fortune in the ballot to express his concern, which the Government share, about unemployment. However, he has exposed both his own and his party's prescriptions for dealing with it and we think that they are gravely mistaken. The hon. Gentleman's speech was wide-ranging and I would not earn the thanks of the House if I followed up all the points that he raised.
Unemployment is now firmly established on a downward trend. By October, it had fallen for 16 months in succession and by almost 500,000 — the largest sustained fall on record—to its lowest level for nearly five years. In the year to October the United Kingdom's unemployment rate fell by more than that of any other major industrialised country. It is now lower than the rate in France or in Belgium, and since June unemployment has fallen in every region of the country. Over the last six months it has been falling at the record rate of over 50,000 per month. The reason for that is that jobs are being created.

Mr. Max Madden: If the firm downward trend about which the Minister speaks continues, how long will it take to reach the unemployment total of 1979?

Mr. Cope: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not forecast unemployment and I do not propose to follow him down that road. If he does not like the unemployment figures, I shall give him the employment figures. Since March 1983 total jobs have increased by well over 1·3 million and that is more than in the whole of the rest of the European Community. This is the longest period of continuous employment growth in almost 30 years. What is more, this growth is gathering pace. The rate of increase in jobs has strengthened in each of the last five quarters. Last year alone the number of jobs grew by well over one third of a million. Those are real productive jobs created by customers, jobs that customers think are useful. Those are not Government-created jobs for which the hon. Gentleman's motion calls.
In his motion and in his speech the hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke about socially useful jobs. He seemed to think that keeping the peace and the defence of Britain were not socially useful jobs. I entirely reject that idea. Unlike most of their critics, the Government have always known that unemployment could only be tackled through the creation of new jobs in the wealth-creating sector of the economy. We also knew, and know now, that new jobs would be forthcoming only if the economic climate favoured rather than penalised the process of wealth creation. To that end we have consistently pursued policies to stimulate and encourage enterprise. By these methods we can give more positive help in job finding to the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend talks about finding jobs. Does he agree that it was on my initiative that the joblink scheme was started? As a consequence, many people throughout Britain found employment. More important, from that little acorn the Government have now taken the scheme on board on a more permanent and proper basis.

They have taken up the advertising of jobs on television. Oracle television is shortly to take this up first of all in the Tyne-Tees area and then nationwide.

Mr. Cope: The scheme to which my hon. Friend refers was good and very helpful.
We have brought inflation down to levels not seen since the 1960s, have brought public spending firmly under control, and have reduced public borrowing to historically low levels. At the same time we have been able to improve incentives through the reduction and simplification of taxes. We have introduced a whole range of measures to promote the growth of small firms and of self-employment, which we welcome, because such small firms have created many of the new jobs.

Mr. Chris Mullin: The Minister mentions the range of measures that the Government have introduced to help small firms. May I draw his attention to the case of Mrs. Eleanor Dalkin in my constituency, which is adjacent to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay)? She is a model of the kind of enterprise that your Government allege they are determined to create.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): They are not my Government.

Mr. Mullin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant the Minister's Government. Mrs. Dalkin set up a factory in January and now employs 44 people. On a technicality she has been denied regional employment grant. In nine months she created employment for 44 people in a town where the unemployment rate is about 21 per cent. She was denied aid under the range of measures about which the Minister speaks.

Mr. Cope: I cannot respond precisely to the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but if he writes to me about the grant I shall certainly look into the matter. The lady that he mentions makes my point about the creation of jobs in small businesses. If she managed to create 44 jobs in nine months, she is doing very well. If she has been able to do it without a Government grant, so much the better.
The Government's policies have been successful and we have emerged from the world recession of the early 1980s into well over six years of continuous economic growth. In that time we have grown faster than any of our major European competitors, although, as the House knows, we previously languished at the bottom of the growth league during the 1960s and the 1970s. This year our growth is expected to outstrip that of all other major industrialised countries. Industrial production is at its highest ever level. Since 1980 manufacturing productivity has grown faster than that of any other major country. In the third quarter of this year it was nearly 7 per cent. higher than in the previous year.
Government policies and their effects have improved employment. The success of our policies and the sustained fall in unemployment have made both possible and necessary the development of our policies. That is why we shall concentrate more on, for example, training the longterm unemployed in new skills. At the same time, it also becomes easier to make sure that benefit goes to those who qualify and not to those who do not.
The Government recognise that unemployed people often need special help to compete for the jobs that are increasingly becoming available. This is especially the case


with the long-term unemployed, who have to cope with a combination of disadvantages, such as deteriorating skills, loss of motivation in looking for work and sometimes resistance from employers. That is why my Department has developed a comprehensive range of measures specifically aimed at the long-term unemployed. This year, my Department and the Manpower Services Commission are spending over £3 billion and providing more than a million opportunities on over 30 employment training and enterprise measures. This represents a comprehensive package of measures offering positive and practical help towards employment.
Of that sum, about £1·5 billion is being spent on schemes to help the long-term unemployed. Of this, we are spending, for example, £1 billion this year on the community programme, which has provided work experience for more than a million long-term unemployed people since its introduction in 1982. About 60 per cent. of the participants in the community programme go into a job under a year after leaving the programme. Under the restart programme, more than 2·3 million long-term unemployed people have been interviewed to assess the best means of helping them back on to the road to employment, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced today a development of the restart programme.
From next April, we shall issue a questionnaire to all those claimants invited for their six-monthly restart interviews. The questionnaire will have two purposes. First, it aims to enhance the restart programme for the very many people who are genuinely unemployed and available for work. Currently, restart interviewers have, in a very brief space of time, to establish a rapport with the claimant, find out something about his or her qualifications, training and recent job-seeking efforts, identify a suitable employment or training opportunity and, in addition, seek to persuade the claimant to take it. By giving the interviewer the head start of knowing something more before the interview about those whom he or she is seeing, this questionnaire should enable more time to be spent on identifying the best opportunity available. The second purpose of the questionnaire is to enable a check to be made to ensure that claimants continue to satisfy the fundamental condition for receipt of benefit —that they are available for work. This new procedure will be launched in a small number of offices in February next year, before its national introduction at the end of April.
Another way in which we help the long-term unemployed is through our network of more than a thousand job clubs which give their members help and facilities for intensive job-hunting. Some 135,000 people will be helped through job clubs this year and about 60 per cent. of all those leaving job clubs will go into jobs. We have also introduced the ambitious new job training scheme to help long-term unemployed people gain the skills and qualifications needed to compete on the labour market—a massive investment in reskilling Britain.
However, it is time to take these programmes a stage further. The task ahead is to help long-term unemployed people in a more coherent way and our priority must be to help them meet the challenge of the steadily improving labour market through the provision of worthwhile training. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary

of State announced on 18 November that our present programmes for unemployed adults are to be brought together into a new training programme. From September next year, the new programme will offer up to 12 months' training to those who have been out of work for six months or more. By building on existing programmes, including the community programme and the new job training scheme, the new programme will be able to take us forward into the 1990s with a flexible and relevant range of training opportunities.
First and foremost, the new programme will be a training programme. It will include practical experience with employers and on projects. It will be tailored closely to the needs of individual praticipants as well as to those of the economy. The emphasis will be very much on practical training, ranging from basic working skills, including numeracy and literacy, to training at technician level. The new programme is all about quality training which will significantly improve the number of people moving on to permanent jobs when they leave.
Existing measures have helped to ensure that, in spite of all their difficulties, which we recognise, the long-term unemployed have shared fully in the benefits of an expanding labour market. In the year to October, the total number of people unemployed for more than a year fell by a record 169,000 to the lowest level for nearly four years. It is very pleasing to see that our hard work in helping the long-term unemployed is bearing fruit in this way. I am confident that this success will continue with the new programme we are introducing next year.
The fall in unemployment has also enabled us to see more clearly whether someone really qualifies for benefit and whether he or she is available for work. The House will know that the law on this subject has remained the same for very many years and it was last re-enacted by the Labour Government in 1975. When unemployment is high or rising, it is more difficult to detect cheating and to identify those who are not really looking for work, but now, particularly in the areas where the job market is strongest, we can do better. Until 1982, those on benefit had to register at jobcentres. Since then, a special form has been signed by claimants. At first, it was a simple declaration, but that was criticised, among others, by the Public Accounts Committee of this House and, as a result, a more elaborate questionnaire was introduced for new claimants to fill in. The House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today replied to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), giving details of changes in the procedure.
From 1 February next year, we are introducing a revised questionaire for all new claimants, asking for more information about the work that they are seeking and the steps that they are taking to find it. The new form seeks more information on such subjects as claimants' qualifications and experience and on the type of work being sought by them. We also intend to supplement the revised questionnaire as soon as possible after 1 February by providing new claimants, in areas of buoyant labour demand, with information about occupations in which jobs are immediately available. We see this as a particularly important means of bringing directly to the attention of more newly unemployed people the expanding job opportunities now available in many places.

Mr. Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently, in the north-east of England, many people who were drawing benefit and working for private contractors have been fined? Will the Government consider fining those who cheat directly by being employees and those who cheat indirectly by acting as employers in this way?

Mr. Cope: We shall certainly consider that suggestion. I cannot tell my hon. Friend off the top of my head whether the matter has been considered before.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Cope: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. It would be difficult for employers to know whether someone was claiming unemployment benefit while they were employed.

Mr. Skinner: It is clear to Opposition Members that the Minister's announcement is another turn of the screw against people who do not have a job and are not likely to get one in the place where they live. As the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) put forward a novel suggestion about those who are supposedly moonlighting, why does the Minister not apply that to those Tory Members who have four, five or six directorships, work in the law courts in the morning and turn up for Parliament only when it suits them? Some of them come in for only half the time. If that suggestion is applied to people at the lower end of the income scale, why should it not also be applied to Tory Members?

Mr. Cope: The conduct of individual Members of Parliament is no longer my direct responsibility.

Ms. Short: Following the intervention made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), I have been approached in my advice bureau by many people who have been driven down to the dole office by their employers to sign on because they are paying such low wages that people cannot survive on them. Mass fiddling is being pushed on to people by employers. I agree with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. If people are to be penalised, such employers should be penalised too.

Mr. Cope: I should be interested in the hon. Lady's evidence of such fraud and cheating. I should be grateful for further particulars if she will supply them.
I have talked about improvements in unemployment generally. I also want to say something about Sunderland and the north-east. I originally came from the midlands. I now live near Bristol. As it happens, I have always had relations in the north-east. I have at least some idea of the economic and social strains that have been imposed on the hon. Gentleman's region by the decline, in real terms and in employment terms, of the great industries that have employed many people for over a century. I have also seen something of the efforts of successive Governments to help the region, even way back since the days of my noble Friend Lord Hailsham.
People talk in an oversimplified way of the differences between north and south. In fact, as we know, the situation is more patchy than that. The hon. Gentleman made that point. Of course, some regions are worse hit than others. Everybody recognises that fact and nobody is complacent about it. But we cannot help the north, however we define it, by holding back the south. We are helping the north-east. Financial asistance by our

Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment exceeded £1 billion in the last financial year, 1986–87.
Let me talk about Sunderland in particular. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that unemployment in his constituency fell by nearly 1,300 in the past year. In the Sunderland travel-to-work area there was a fall of over 3,400. Of course, unemployment remains too high, but we have been encouraged by that fall, and there are positive signs that it can and will continue. As has already been said, we are encouraging enterprise in Sunderland. Three local enterprise agencies operate in Sunderland.

Mr. Clay: I give the Minister one example of how the figures have gone down. An employer in Sunderland advertised work in the Sunderland Echo. Twenty people applied for and were given work. After a week, the employer said, "I cannot actually pay you what I told you I would pay you at the beginning of the week. From now on, you go and sign on. If you do not sign on, I shall not continue to employ you." In other words, the employer said, "If you do not fiddle, I shall sack you."
I regret that I cannot write to the Minister about the matter because, for obvious reasons, none of the 20 employees is prepared to give his or her name. That is an illustration of how the Minister is getting unemployment figures down.

Mr. Cope: That is not an illustration of how we are getting unemployment figures down; it is an illustration of how unemployment figures are staying up. The hon. Gentleman said that they stayed on the dole. The unemployment figures relating to the 20 to whom he referred have not come down. I should like to have further particulars. I cannot follow up an individual accusation of that kind unless I have particulars. I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but he must understand that it is also my difficulty.
Over 1,100 unemployed people in the south Tyne region are currently using the enterprise allowance scheme, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to solve their unemployment problem by setting up in business and creating their own jobs. Of course we know that not all businesses succeed, but two thirds or so do succeed, and they also employ other people.
An advanced electronics company is running projects and encouraging innovation and enterprise in information technology. In another project, the innovative factory for new technology is establishing a commercial factory unit on the same lines. It has initial backing from both national and local government and, incidentally, from the European Community. Local companies, too, are expanding. Grove Coles Cranes of Sunderland is investing £5 million. Freemans, the mail order firm, is creating new jobs in Washington. English Estates recently announced record levels of inquiries for factory space in its region.
The hon. Gentleman referred to inward and outward investment. One of the encouraging signs for the country as a whole as well as for the north-east is the way in which foreign firms have seen the potential in Britain. and particularly in the north-east. No fewer than 16 Japanese companies have invested in the north-east. That is part of a large total that has been invested in this country by overseas companies. That is an excellent sign of other people's confidence in the British economy.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I am carefully following what my hon. Friend has been saying about some growing companies. I refer to British companies rather than inward investment companies. Is he satisfied that banks are giving enough support to new businesses or existing businesses that wish to grow, possibly through the loan guarantee scheme, which could help them? If he is not satisfied, will he speak to the banks and establish whether they can give special help in difficult areas such as the north-east?

Mr. Cope: It always pays people to shop around the different banks if they are having trouble getting support from one bank. Bank managers vary in their responses to individual schemes. I regularly talk to regional and central banks to encourage them in the direction that my hon. Friend would wish them to follow.
Among the foreign companies to which I have talked, Komatsu recently announced an increase in employment at its Birtley earthmoving machinery plant. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, Nissan is the biggest employer. It recently launched a night shift, bringing its total work force in Sunderland to over 1,000. There is more good news today, which I am glad to say that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North also welcomed. Today, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the chairman of Nissan, Mr. Ishihara, signed heads of agreement for the expansion of Nissan's Sunderland plant to produce a second model of a small passenger car. It is a £216 million investment, involving about 1,000 extra jobs at the Sunderland site, plus 400 associated jobs by 1992. It is expected to produce an extra 100,000 cars a year, 60 per cent. of which will be for export. The cars will initially have a 60 per cent. local content, rising to 80 per cent. in 18 months. That is welcome news to us and, indeed, to the hon. Gentleman.
There is much encouraging news about, but, as I said, no one can be complacent. No one owes Britain a living. The problems that we are discussing will always need constant vigilance. We have to remain competitive. The hon. Gentleman touched on that matter and recognised the importance of competitiveness in the shipbuilding industry in his constituency. He recognised that we need to compete on world markets. That brings me to the last point I wish to raise which is about the effect of wage settlements on jobs.
Excessive wage growth, by pricing our goods out of international markets, destroys jobs. It undoubtedly contributed to the high level of unemployment in recent years. When we took office, settlements of 20 per cent. were not uncommon and inflation and unit wage costs were heading towards 20 per cent. or more. Since then, the situation has been transformed. Changes in attitudes towards pay bargaining have been a key factor in that transformation. I am glad to say that bargaining has become more realistic, less confrontational and more flexible. There is a greater awareness of the link between pay and jobs. But the problem has not completely disappeared. Earnings growth is currently 7·75 per cent., almost double the inflation rate. More importantly, it is well in excess of our major competitors. We cannot depend on productivity growth, good as that has been, continuing to absorb such high increases in real earnings. There are still too many pay bargainers who do not accept that pay increases must be earned, must be justified by efficiency and market considerations of performance, and must be

affordable. That is the central difficulty of the job of spreading ideas which the hon. Gentleman advanced, attractive as they are in many ways. Until pay increases are earned, growth in earnings and unit wage costs will threaten competitiveness, and that is still one of the most serious risks to jobs in Britain.
In his motion and in his speech, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North argued for greater public investment and public ownership, but lasting reductions in unemployment cannot be obtained by injecting huge extra sums of taxpayers' money into infrastructure spending or local authority make-work schemes. The Socialist policies for which the hon. Gentleman's motion calls are a recipe for economic disaster on any basis. If Opposition Members cannot see that, they should look at France, where not so long ago such a policy was tried and failed. Instead, we looked to the private, wealth-creating sector of the economy as the engine that would generate lasting jobs. We have been, and we are being, proved right in our prescription.

Ms. Clare Short: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on his luck in winning this opportunity to debate the serious problem of unemployment. His motion refers to the British economy as a casino economy. It is rarely understood by the public that we also have a casino House of Commons. The opportunity to raise motions, questions and private Members' Bills depends on a raffle in which most hon. Members, like people in all casinos, lose.
We are lucky that this afternoon my hon. Friend had the opportunity to introduce a very important motion and to make such a wide-ranging and important speech in which he analysed the real underlying problem of the British economy. His speech contrasts sharply with that of the Minister which concentrated on statistical boasts about the health of the British economy, which largely depended on the manipulation of unemployment statistics and statistics for the numbers of new jobs that have become available. Today, he announced a further ratchet in the pressures on those who are unemployed to be forced into low-paid jobs and compulsory work schemes. The Government claim to believe in freedom of choice, yet they are offering those who have no freedom to work compulsory make-work schemes which will not strengthen our economy or give people freedom or a decent income.
I do not intend to speak on all the issues raised by the motion, as my hon. Friend has already spoken so well. In the limited time available, I wish to put on record the serious criticism of Opposition Members and of many groups in society of the new adult training scheme that was announced by the Secretary of State on 18 November. It is our view that the scheme is unacceptable and will not work. I shall go into more detail about the range of forces in society that are opposed to the scheme, and I shall ask the Minister to think again about those proposals, which will only damage the interests of the unemployed. A new alliance in Britain is saying that we will not co-operate in the scheme, and we ask the Government to offer something better to the unemployed.
I want to put into context the seriousness of the way in which the Government are manipulating make-work schemes to cut wage levels in Britain. There is a real contrast between the way in which the Government and


Government supporters constantly crow about the health and vibrance of the British economy, and the experiences of Opposition Members who represent areas where unemployment is horrendously high and where those who can get work all too often work for incredibly low wages which mean that getting a job is hardly an escape from the poverty of unemployment.
Throughout our constituencies, we see the seediness, the decline in housing, the holes in the road and the uncollected rubbish Our economy is becoming a slum economy with high unemployment, low wages and poor quality public services. In my lifetime it has never been so bad, and I am sincerely shocked that it is so bad, yet Conservative Members boast that our economy is healthy and prosperous.
We must ask ourselves whether Conservative Members are being dishonest, whether they see what we see and pretend that it is not happening, or whether they live in a completely different world from ours and that of our constituents. I suspect that at times they are being dishonest, but that they spend most of their lives mixing with people who have done enormously well out of the Thatcherite intervention in the British economy.
There is no doubt that the best paid 20 per cent. in the British economy have never been better off. Their taxes have been cut and their incomes have gone up. Profits have gone up and people working in the City are doing very well. Britain imports more champagne than any other developed economy. There is a group of people who have done enormously well out of Thatcherism. However, there is an enormous group of people that goes beyond the 4 or 5 million unemployed. The figure was understated by 18 or 19 fiddles in the way in which unemployment figures are collected.
In Britain there are now 9 million people who are low paid, according to the Council of Europe decency threshold, which is an income of less than £126 per week. The proportion of poor and low-paid people working in our economy has grown and continues to grow. Those people face either unemployment or the poverty trap. That is the reality of the economy for most people who live in Britain. The slum economy, with low pay, low investment and poor training, is an unjust and unequal economy, which is also incredibly inefficient. When labour is very cheap and can be hired and fired, it is not worth investing and training. By constant pressure to cut wages, Britain is seeking to compete with the poorest countries of the world, a competition which we will never win and which bodes ill for the future of our economy.
The increase in poverty and poverty wages is partly a consequence of the massive growth in unemployment deliberately engineered by the Government to cut wage levels, but the Government have also taken a series of steps to push down the wages of the lowest paid. They include the Wages Act 1986 which reduced the protection of those people protected by wages councils, the abolition of the fair wages resolution and section 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, and the privatisation of public services. For cleaners, dinner ladies and low-paid workers in the public services, privatisation meant simply a cut in wages and fewer people doing the work. It is a wage-cutting measure that leads not to increased efficiency, but to poorly paid people being paid even less. Employers have been subsidised on condition that they pay workers low wages, such as with the young workers scheme, and the deliberate use of special employment measures to lever

down the wage expectations of the unemployed and the conditions that people can expect when they are in employment.
In regard to the youth training scheme, if the Government had continued to pay the rates that were paid before 1979, they would currently be paying more than £40 a week. We are now about to move from a position in which young people can choose to go on such a scheme, and because they have so few options and opportunities, they have massively chosen to go on the scheme, whatever its deficiencies. A minute number of people have refused a place, but still the Government are removing benefit entitlement from young people so that they are forced on to the scheme. The Government claim that people should have freedom of choice, but they are removing young people's right to shop around for a scheme which might lead them to a chance of a real job. Young people are being compelled while being paid ever less.
It is not that the Government are simply being nasty and vindictive, although they are being both; they are pursuing a strategy which entails using schemes to lever wage levels down. If they allow the supplementary benefit minimum to be the alternative for young people, they cannot cut the YTS allowance any further. That minimum is therefore to be reduced so that YTS allowances can be cut still further.
The Government tried this before when the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was Secretary of State for Employment. We had a White Paper which said that YTS was to be made compulsory and that young people would be paid £15 a week. It caused uproar in all parts of society, including employers, who were not anxious to have conscripted and underpaid young people charging around their workplaces.
The Government had to back off. They have waited, made things worse, given young people less choice, and now they think that they can get away with it. They are taking powers in the Social Security Bill and the Employment Bill, both of which are in Committee, to force young people on to schemes, however inadequate they may be, irrespective of whether they provide training. They are removing from young people who cannot get a job the one option that they now enjoy—to study up to 21 hours a week and retain benefit. When anxious parents come to me asking about the future and telling me that their child has been offered only a place on a scheme but that the overwhelming majority do not get a job at 1 he end of it I tell them about the 21 hours' study option. 1t is crucial for poor parents that the student should have some income to enable him or her to gain qualifications and skills. That option is to be wiped out, however, because the Government are so determined to push down young people's wages.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am a member of the Committee which is considering the Social Security Bill. Is my hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members made a plea from the heart that benefit should not be withdrawn from young people who have been brought up in local authority care, and have experienced trauma and do not settle easily, and that the Minister turned us down? It is well known in social services circles that such children have difficulty settling, but the Minister would not make an exception for them.

Ms. Short: I had heard about that. It is worrying. I recently watched a television programme which showed


children under 16 and young people aged between 16 and 18 in the United States who live on the streets through prostitution or the sale of drugs. Many have grown up in care and been victims of sexual abuse. I fear that such conditions may apply here as a result of such a decision.
The Minister referred to the Secretary of State's announcement of 18 December. It outlined plans for a new compulsory work scheme for the adult unemployed. Such a scheme exists in the United States. It is called workfare. The intention is to force people to work for their benefits.
The Government have now announced the introduction of workfare to the United Kingdom. They are combining the budgets of the community programme and the job training scheme, which was introduced before the general election to try to encourage the unemployment figures to decline in the run-up to the election. It flopped because the offer was so bad. It was effectively an offer of work experience for benefit.
We are now offered a massively increased 600,000-place scheme which pays a few pounds—the exact amount has not been announced — on top of benefit. The Department of Health and Social Security tables make it clear that the cost of going to work—the bus fare, more expensive food at the workplace and different clothes—is £7 a week. It therefore costs £7 a week to be no better off.
The Government propose to pay a few pounds a week more than benefit for full-time work. The harm is not restricted to those people being denied choice; they will be used to compete with people in work and thus to drag down their wages. The Minister has announced more compulsion today. We have the Minister's new questionnaire, restart, the new availability for work test and powers which are to be taken in the Employment Bill. The latter provides that, once the scheme is running—if the Government get away with it—it will be designated as a training scheme and that anybody who refuses to apply, refuses a place or leaves because he thinks it is inadequate will have benefit cut for six months. We are now talking about compulsory schemes for the adult unemployed. The Government will then boast that long-term unemployment has declined.
I can tell the Government that they cannot have such a scheme. They could not have had the schemes that they have already established without the co-operation of the trade union movement, local authorities and voluntary organisations. Their co-operation will not be forthcoming for the proposed scheme. On 8 December, there was a meeting of representatives of a powerful new alliance, which The Guardian called the new triple alliance, of trade unions, voluntary organisations and local authorities. They came to the House of Commons to ask the Government to think again and to say that they would not co-operate.
I hope that the Minister is listening, because this is an important message. The trade unions represented were the Transport and General Workers Union—in the person of Ron Todd, its general secretary and a Manpower Services Commissioner—the National Union of Public Employees, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section, the Society of Civil and Public Servants, which organises those who work for the Civil

Service who will be used to compel people to take a place on the scheme, and the National and Local Government Officers Association. They have previously co-operated with authorised schemes but will now refuse to do so.
For local authorities, we had John Pearman, the leader of Wakefield council, who is the representative of local education authorities on the Manpower Services Commission, and representatives of the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities, Rochdale, which runs one of the largest schemes in the country, Manchester and the Association of London Authorities.
The representatives of voluntary organisations were led by Rev. Roger Clarke, who represents voluntary organisations on the MSC's advisory group on special measures. He said:
It appals us that we are being cast in the role of workhouse managers herding unemployed people through training schemes … We shall play no part in a scheme that would take away fundamental human rights and involve us in conscription.
Those groups have rejected the Minister's new scheme and say that there are five basic principles which must be complied with if any new scheme is to receive their cooperation. First, it must be entirely voluntary. Secondly, there should be real training so that people go away at the end with skills that are relevant to their future employment prospects. Thirdly, those concerned must have employee status so that they are protected by health and safety and equal opportunities legislation. Fourthly, they must be paid the rate for the job—not benefit-plus—and, finally, projects must have trade union approval.
If the five conditions are not forthcoming in the new scheme, the Government will not have the co-operation of the coalition, which means that they will not have the scheme. The coalition stated:
Our aim is to protect the interests of the unemployed. It is totally unacceptable that they should be forced to work for their benefits and be used to drive down wage levels for those in work. The success of Government training schemes has depended on the co-operation of trade unions, voluntary sector and local authorities. Such co-operation will not be forthcoming for the Government's new scheme. We are asking all groups currently involved in running schemes to support the Charter.
The charter is a document that incorporates the five principles to which I have referred. The coalition's statement continued:
We are asking the Government to think again before the publication of the White Paper.
The Government boast of a healthy economy but we see a slum economy with increasing impoverishment and low pay. We know that conditions within the economy will become worse without some intervention. The Government have been able to obscure the destruction of our manufacturing base by using North sea oil revenues, but those revenues are now in decline and there is the prospect of a balance of payments crisis and the deflation that will inevitably follow from that. We know that the Government's privatisation programme will come to an end when they have sold off everything that can be privatised. There will then be a gap in Government revenues and pressure for even further public expenditure cuts. This will lead to further impoverishment of our society and loss of employment.
The Government's free market economy does not work. It is not a glamorous economy. The Government's policy is creating poverty and a lack of hope and choice for our people. We ask the Government to think again.


The Opposition say in all seriousness that the Government will not be able to implement the scheme that has recently been announced unless they are willing to listen to the new alliance and redesign their scheme so that it meets minimum standards.
The real answers to the problems of the British economy lie in Socialist intervention, planning and use of the massive resources of our economy. After all, we are about the 20th richest country in the world. Unfortunately, the Government are increasingly delivering poverty to our people. The Japanese economy is not run on Socialist lines but within it there is room for planning and Government intervention. The Government's obsessive and prejudiced belief in free-market economics is doing enormous damage to the British people and to the future of the British economy. We reject the Government's economic policy and we hope that they will think again about the scheme that they intend to introduce, which in its present form would lead to more poverty and more compulsion for the unemployed.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on initiating the debate. That is about the only thing on which I can congratulate him. I realise that this is a short debate, so I promise that I shall not detain the House for long. In what is a short debate the hon. Gentleman spoke for 50 minutes. His speech seemed to last a great deal longer than that for those who had to listen to it. I feel that a weekend with the hon. Gentleman must be rather like a month in the country.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North represents a north-east constituency.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) won the constituency.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I was talking about the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, not the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

Mr. Haffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I shall not give way. I am talking about the hon. Member for Sunderland, North.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North could have talked for four hours if he had wished to do so.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech. It seems that he is anxious to speak. As I have said, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke for 50 minutes.

Mr. Heifer: Get on with it.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I shall take my time. I can speak until 7 o'clock if I choose to do so.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North represents a north-east constituency, and I was born in that area. One of the differences between us is that the hon. Gentleman went to a public school. He went to Bedford and I went to Jarrow grammar school. I make that point because we are always being told by Opposition Members that we on the Government Benches know nothing about the state education system.
As I have said, I disagreed with just about everything that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said. I

disagreed too with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). If their speeches reflect the philosophy of the Labour party, it comes as no surprise to me that the Labour party was so thoroughly defeated in the general election.

Mr. Heffer: The trouble is that that philosophy was not put forward. If it had been offered to the people, we would have won.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Labour Members seem to have conveniently short memories. They seem to forget that it was under the previous Labour Government that we had the worst economic crisis that any of us could remember. That was the position in 1976, when the Labour Government had to go running—

Mrs. Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: No, I shall not give way.

Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to know whether we are still debating unemployment. We seem to have moved on to something else. I am rather confused.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not heard anything yet from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) that has been out of order. I am listening carefully.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do need your protection occasionally.
In 1976, the Labour Government led us into an awful crisis and they had to be rescued by the International Monetary Fund. That is a matter of fact.

Mr. Mullin: That was the product of the capitalist system.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North talked about unemployment, and the chances are that I know more about that than he does. As I have said, I was born in the north-east. In fact, I was born on Tyneside. When I was a child, my father, like thousands of others in that area, was out of work.

Mr. Mullin: There are thousands out of work now.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: That is so, but no one can pretend that the unemployment on Tyneside in 1932 and 1933 can be compared with the unemployment of today. There was a grinding, abject poverty in the 1930s. I never want to see those days return. My father had 21 shillings on which to keep his family. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made a speech when he was Secretary of State for Employment in which he recalled that his father was out of work during the depression. He told us that his father got on his bike and went to look for work, and that was ridiculed by the Opposition. My father got on a bike and looked for work. There can be nothing worse for an individual than to want to work and yet be unable to find work. I hope that the days that I lived through on Tyneside when I was a child will never return. Anyone who pretends that conditions now are the same as those that applied during the 1930s is not living in the modern world.
It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and Ladywood should have made speeches of gloom when it is reported in the Daily Mail today—

Mr. Mullin: It would be the Daily Mail.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: It is a good newspaper. If the hon. Gentleman read it occasionally, he might learn something. The Daily Mail reports:
Unemployment has fallen to its lowest for more than six years as orders pour in to factories. The number of people out of work is understood to have dropped by about 60,000 last month to just about 2,500,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. This 17th successive monthly fall means unemployment is down by around 550,000 since June last year—the biggest sustained reduction on record.
A CBI survey produces a much brighter and more optimistic picture than that which is being painted by Labour Members. Part of it states:
New productivity figures due on Thursday will further reinforce Mrs. Thatcher's claim that sound finance and enterprise have produced a higher standard of living than this country has ever known.
That is very different from the story that the hon. Member for Ladywood was presenting us with and preaching not so long ago.

Mr. Mullin: Where is this prosperity?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I ask the hon. Gentleman to look around the country. It may not be found in Jarrow, but what about Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool? The hon. Gentleman should look at what is happening in the shops in those areas. He should have regard to retail sales in those areas and the general standard of living, which is something of which I would not have dreamt when I was young.

Mr. Mullin: There are not many Tories in Jarrow.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: No, but the ones who are there are jolly good.
It ill behoves Labour Members to attack the Government on their employment record. Unemployment did not appear suddenly in 1979. It has been rising remorselessly in the United Kingdom since the 1960s. It rose throughout the 1960s when there was over-manning, which was hidden unemployment.

Mr. Clay: That is tripe.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: It is not tripe. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not. During the 1960s there were people in employment who were not needed. As a result, firms became uncompetitive and consequently more and more jobs were lost. We had pay rises that were not earned and a bad record of strikes.

Mr. Mullin: Why was that?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to participate in the debate, I suggest that he makes his own speech.
The combination of over-manning, unearned pay rises and a bad record of strikes made Britain uncompetitive and helped to create higher unemployment. Nobody disputes that unemployment is much worse in the north than in the south. I was born in the north and I represent a constituency in the north. One has to bear in mind that in the north we have the old basic industries of coal, steel and shipbuilding. All of those industries are in decline throughout the world. They are in decline in the United States but there all the coalfields, steelworks and shipyards are not concentrated in the same area but are spotted around. In this country they are all concentrated in the north. Therefore, we see the problem much more starkly than in other countries.
Of course, we have been through difficult times and I do not think that anyone disputes that. Despite what has

been said from the Opposition Benches, I believe that things are improving because of the policies pursued by the Government. For once we have a Prime Minister who has stuck to what she believed was right. Other Prime Ministers may have started off on the right road —[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend has won three successive general elections which is quite a record

Ms. Short: With 42 per cent. of the vote.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: It was a substantially higher percentage than the Labour party got. The hon. Lady conveniently forgets that we now have a three-party system. It is unlikely that at a future election any party will get 50 per cent. of the vote. So, if I were her, I would not be too smart because, in the unlikely event that we ever get another Labour Government, I doubt whether they will get 42 per cent. of the vote. Certainly the Labour vote has been declining.

Ms. Short: Yes, we have a divided opposition. That is why the Government party is in power. But it is important for the Tory party to understand that the support it has had in the three general elections of 42 per cent., 43 per cent., and 42 per cent., means that a majority of the people is opposed to it. For example, in the last 13 years of Tory rule Labour in opposition got a higher vote than that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we ought to return to the motion on the Order Paper.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I shall not continue with that, except to ask the hon. Lady to check the figures. I think that not one party that has won a general election since the war has scored more than than 50 per cent. The nearest were the Conservatives in 1955 and 1959 when they got 49 per cent. Things are improving because of the policies being pursued by the Government. We have a Prime Minister who has stuck to what she believed to be right.

Mr. Mullin: They love her in Jarrow!.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary interventions do not help the progress of the debate. We could do with fewer of them.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: We now see the benefit of the sensible policies. We have seen a sustained improvement in the economy. We also have to bear in mind that we need a level of pay which enables workers to be priced into jobs, which is the important point, instead of being priced out of jobs. We need pay rates which ensure that British industry can hold its own against major competitors.
I hope that the unemployment figures which are due out on Thursday will show the 17th successive monthly fall. That is good news. I just wish that there were a few more cheerful faces on the Opposition side. I am afraid that good news is not good news to the Opposition. They thrive on gloom and doom.
The unemployment figures for September showed that there were fewer unemployed school leavers than at any time since 1974. That was particularly welcome. There is nothing worse for any young person than to start adult life on the dole.
It is also good news that we are doing better at reducing unemployment than most of our competitors. I think I am right in saying that the rate of unemployment has fallen by 1.5 per cent. in the last year, whereas in Germany, France and Italy the rates have increased. The employed labour force for the United Kingdom rose substantially


between March 1983 and June 1987. If I am wrong, I am sure I will be corrected, but I think that we have a higher percentage of people of employable age working than any other country in the European Community.
Of course, there are still problems. The Government must never be complacent. I am particularly worried about the man who is made redundant in his late fifties. That is a terrible tragedy. I said earlier that I felt sorry for young people who started their working life on the dole. I have always believed that, as the economy improved, that problem would disappear, but the problem does not disappear for the man in his late fifties. For him and his family this is the most awful problem. I hope that the Government have not forgotten the plight of people in that category.
In the last general election campaign we were told by the leader of the Labour party that the Tories could not and would not reduce Britain's dole queue. Yet again the right hon. Gentleman has been proved wrong because the dole queue is being reduced. Long-term unemployment has shown a record fall and unemployment has fallen in every region. That is good news. The Government alone cannot do it all. We hear the cry all the time that the Government must do this or the Government must do that. The Government are not the only source of responsiblity. Certainly we have to have policies that help. We must continue to have policies which reduce taxation and reward success, and which ensure that inflation does not get out of hand again.
Above all, we have to heed the lesson that we must be competitive. We have to ensure that productivity is high and that pay increases are earned. We have to listen to what our customers say. Nobody will buy British simply because it is British. People will buy the goods we produce only if the price, the quality and the order date are right. That is why I am glad that the number of strikes has dropped drastically since the Government took office.
I want to pay tribute to the way in which the Government have tackled the economy and, through their successful policies, have reduced the number of unemployed. I hope that in the months ahead we shall see the number of unemployed further reduced.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I want to respond briefly to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on his claim about real jobs. In preparation for the debate I studied the jobs that have gone in manufacturing in my constituency during the last 15 months when we have had an upturn in the economy. I found that over 500 jobs had gone in very good firms that have been in Halifax since I was born. For instance, 176 jobs have gone at Rowntree Mackintosh; 75 jobs have gone in textiles; and over 100 jobs have gone in machine tool engineering. Those were real jobs that paid real wages and had real training elements.
Most Conservative Members view unemployment simply as a statistic. Its effects upon communities and individuals are ignored. I have heard nothing about its effects upon family life and upon communities. There has been much crowing about the fact that the number of strikes is down and that people are working for lower wages but nothing about the real problems facing the unemployed.
I challenge what the Minister said about inflation. If he considers the people who are trying to exist on social

security benefits he will find that inflation affects them differently. The things on which they need to spend their total disposable income, such as rent, rates, mortgages, transport, bus fares, prescriptions and energy costs, have risen far more than the rate of inflation to which the Minister referred.
We are told that the unemployment figures are coming down month by month. I have an unemployment unit bulletin which shows 19 changes. I draw attention to just one. It is estimated that the Government's new test of availability for work will in 12 months get rid of 95,000 people from the dole statistics; after two years 120,000 will disappear from the statistics. Those people will still exist after they have been harassed off the dole queue. They are still living human beings. No amount of fiddling with figures will remove the misery that is brought about when benefit is withdrawn.
I do not accept that anyone believes the Government's suspect figures. The figures are a joke. If I was marking work in a classroom and was presented with the Government's figures I would include the words "Must try harder." I do not believe that Conservative Members are convinced about the unemployment figures. One statistic within the Government's figures has not changed and every time Conservative Members consider that statistic, they should be ashamed. That statistic is the number of long-term jobless young. That number has remained untouched. There are still more than 1 million young people in that category. I challenge Conservative Members to say that I am wrong. Forty per cent. of the long-term unemployed in my constituency are young people and that represents nearly 2,000 young people.
Yesterday afternoon I watched "Weekend World". I hope that the Minister watched that programme as well. It dealt specifically with the young unemployed. An ex-Tory Member of Parliament introduced the programme and referred to how this under-class was forging a new culture with values set apart from the rest of us. They no longer forge the links that will bind them to our society, such as buying a house or owning a car or beginning family life as we know it; they are totally excluded from doing so because of their jobless status. They do not have any stake in our society and therefore they see no reason to abide by rules in a society which rejects them.
In the programme young men and women spoke openly about robbing replacing buying. It was even more worrying that older people condoned that attitude. Those older people had been living on benefit and had direct experience of eking out a desperate level of existence. Their message on behalf of the young was clear: if millions of people are left jobless and in deprivation, the social fabric will be threatened. There will be no family bond because young men and women cannot afford to cohabit on benefits. The conclusion was that the Government's policies are eating into and destroying family life among that under-class.
Much has been written and spoken about the effects of unemployment on health. "The Health Divide" — an update of the Black report—was published earlier this year. The Government tried to suppress those reports. I am sure that hon. Members will remember the Black report published in 1980. The then Minister for Health published only 250 copies of the report because he did not want people to know what was happening. There was also a disgraceful episode this year when "The Health Divide" concluded that the health gap between those in work and


those out of work had widened. The press conference called to announce the publication of that report was cancelled. Indeed, an attempt was made to silence the people who had drawn it up. "The Health Divide" revealed the obscene difference between different classes in our society and the way in which the unemployed suffer.
Dr. David Player, the outgoing director general of the Health Education Council, stated in the foreword to "The Health Divide":
Such iniquity is inexcusable in a democratic society which prides itself on being humane.
Unemployment is literally killing people, as the report highlights.
I know that Conservative Members will refer to the so-called upturn in the economy. As I have said, the number of young long-term unemployed has not been touched. In the main, the new jobs have been for the well qualified and the experienced. There is not much opportunity for the young long-term unemployed unless they enter the low-paid, spiv economy. I have had some experience of those jobs in Halifax and I want to draw the attention of the House to two particular cases that I researched last week.
We have been told that the future for Halifax lies in tourism. However, I must tell hon. Members that the recorded rainfall in Halifax is very high and I advise them to bring umbrellas if they come. We are told that the future lies in tourism rather than in well paid, highly skilled jobs in machine tools and textiles. I investigated one job in tourism last week, which was paying 86p an hour. Another was paying £1 an hour for an 18-year-old working shifts and weekends in the kitchen of a hotel that had been given a handout of £150,000 to encourage tourism in the area. Those cases must be investigated. Young people are not being paid properly from the grants.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What is the local Member of Parliament doing about it?

Mrs. Mahon: The local Member is objecting very loudly.
We have also been given the sop of business in the community to compensate for the loss of manufacturing in Halifax. Business in the community has worthy aims and if there was real investment—

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way? Mrs. Mahon: No, I will not give way. Mr. Ian Brucerose—

Mrs. Mahon: Sit down. I said no.
Business in the community has been offered as a sop for real investment in manufacturing, which the Government have deliberately starved of investment. Business in the community would be welcome as the icing on the cake, but it will not be a panacea for the loss of 10,000 jobs in manufacturing. It is mainly about enhancing tourism and, by definition, that means low-paid, low-skilled jobs.
The future looks grim for manufacturing towns such as Halifax. Poor pay and poor conditions are on offer with the low-paid jobs. It is relevant to talk about low pay when we are discussing unemployment, especially in light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said about the enforcement of the new job training scheme. I want to draw attention to west Yorkshire, the region that I represent, and the way in which wages have fallen relative to the British average. The

region is now bottom of the pay league and I do not like the fact that Halifax is recorded at the bottom of the league. Just under one fifth of full-time male workers in the region are low-paid and that is double the figure in 1979. Some 60 per cent. of full-time women workers are low-paid and I believe that that is also double the 1979 figure. More than 80 per cent. of part-timers fall within the low-paid category and in my constituency part-time work is on the increase at the expense of full-time jobs.
In the Yorkshire and Humberside region there was a fall of 167,000 in jobs between 1979 and 1986. There has been an increase of 55,000 in part-timers. I concede that in the year ended December 1986 the number of jobs picked up a bit throughout the region. However, during the same period, there was an increase of 17,000 in the number of part-timers.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is the hon. Lady familiar with the fact that in her constituency a company called Sinclair—run by Clive Sinclair—set up a factory which employed 250 people under the Labour Government? It was promised all sorts of grants by the Labour Government, but it took the Department of Trade and Industry a year to make a decision. It decided to turn the company down and 250 people were made redundant.

Mrs. Mahon: I want to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry has been messing about with another company seeking grants. That company has threatened to move to another town. I also draw his attention to the fact that under this Government we have lost assisted area status and we are now like the hole in the middle of the doughnut. We have also lost urban aid since the Government came to power. In return for the thousands of jobs that have been lost, we have Government schemes and low pay.

Mr. Michael Jack': Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Mahon: No, I want to carry on.
There are 2,500 people on training schemes in Halifax. More than 50 per cent. of those on youth training schemes in west Yorkshire do not progress to a job and 28 per cent. go back on the dole. We are living with the effects of this Government's policies. The young long-term unemployed have good reason to reject slave labour conditions. They should seriously question whether they should work from seven in the morning until seven in the evening on such allowances. I think that there would be something wrong with young people who did not object to such exploitation, and I am glad that such objections are being made.
Conservative Members have a choice. They can begin, even at this late stage, to reject the disastrous policies that have wiped out manufacturing in many parts of the country. Manufacturing is how the nation became great: it is how we earned our living in the world markets. We are now becoming the warehouse of the world, because the Government's policies are sucking in imports while our people languish on the dole. The Government are trying to batter unemployed people into submission by reducing benefits and conscripting them into schemes that will not lead anywhere—certainly not to jobs. That will breed a desperate sense of injustice and lead to a search for alternative forms of funding, such as a further explosion in crime.
The Government should be ashamed. They are the party of law and order, and they have presided over the


biggest explosion in crime since the war. They should be tackling the economy, and investing in manuacturing to create real jobs. The National Health Service is crying out for jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) pointed out. The Government should put money back into the Health Service, and to ensure that there are enough nurses so that wards need not be closed, instead of trying to create another scheme that is all about controlling the young and keeping the dole figures down. They should be trying to destroy the seedbed of poverty, rather than increase it.
Conservative Members always use the argument that the taxpayer will have to pay. But the taxpayer is already paying — for more prisons and expensive punitive institutions to house the young. Society will pay dearly for ignoring a growing group who will undermine our way of life if they continue to be rejected. It is a moral affront deliberately to deny the principle of citizenship, which is to guarantee a certain minimum social position for everyone, including the under-class that we are creating.
The hardening of attitudes that I have observed since I became a Member of Parliament, and the law and order approach adopted by the Government towards the young unemployed, will simply breed a generation growing up to accept models of crime as the answer to the problem of survival. The unemployed are the victims of Thatcherite policies. The Prime Minister has no place for them, but the Government ignore them at their peril.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: If any debate has demonstrated how out of touch, anachronistic and even other-worldly the Labour party has become, it is this one. No wonder Labour has not been able to win an election since 1974.
The motion is not a strategy for jobs; it is the economics of the dinosaur. For a start, it takes no account of the achievements of a competitive economy over the past seven years. There has been a drop of 480,000 in unemployment in the past year, and a record 24·3 million people are in work. There has been a drop in youth unemployment to less than the European average, and a record number of self-employed people and business starts. That must be evidence of a dynamic and responsive economy.
The Opposition not only ignore the results of surveys, both regional and national, which show an unparalleled optimism and enterprise in the economy. They ignore, consistently, the basic reality that applies whether a person lives in the west or the east, in an agrarian or industrial economy, or even—as Mr. Gorbachev is beginning to learn — in a Communist state. If we want to increase employment and improve standards of living, we must have profitable firms investing in products and services that are sold at a price and in a quantity that people want.
Worst of all, Labour Members' fetish with macroeconomic policy has blinded us too often in the past to the micro-economic steps that are necessary to improve the supply side of the economy, which in turn will improve jobs. Surely it should be as plain as a pikestaff to anyone but the most ideologically obtuse Member that state interference, central direction, high taxation, high borrowing and the general fiscal irresponsibility that we saw before 1979 produced nothing short of a disaster. Restrictive practices meant that productivity was going up at only two thirds of the OECD average. It is now rising

faster than anywhere in the world apart from Japan. Punitive taxation meant that the share of profits as a proportion of gross national product fell from 18 per cent. in 1966 to only 5 per cent. in 1979. It is now at its best level for 20 years.
Irresponsible borrowing by the Government —9 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1975—not only kept interest rates high, but ensured that the rate of return on investment in the United Kingdom was the lowest in the OECD countries. Probably most tragic of all for the unemployed, inflation not only damaged the long-term prospects of the unemployed, but ensured that unit labour costs rose nearly three times as fast as those of our competitors, and, as a result, damaged the competitiveness and job-creating potential of the economy.
Those policies were simply not sustainable. If we want to be the sick man of Europe, and if we want our economy to be run by the International Monetary Fund, we should follow precisely the interventionist policies put forward by the Labour party this afternoon. That lesson must be—and has been—learnt not only by Britain, but by the Russians, the Indians, the Mexicans and the French We want jobs to be created and productivity, investment, profits and competitiveness to be improved, and that is what is happening now in the British economy.
I do not rely only on figures. Let us take the west midlands, which was and still is the centre of Britain's manufacturing industry. As we all admit, it as much as anywhere else suffered from the restructuring that has happened throughout the world. During the past month, unemployment in Kidderminster, in my constituency, has fallen by nearly a tenth to the best level for 15 years. In the past two months, there have been 47 applications for industrial premises of 10,000 sq ft or more. The chamber of commerce recently carried out a survey, which was updated after 19 October. The survey found that of firms surveyed — they were the largest employers — no fewer that 87 per cent. expected to increase exports; 88 per cent. expected profits to increase or to remain the same, and half of them expectd them to increase; and, most important of all, 64 per cent. expected to increase their labour force in the next six months. Only 8 per cent. expected it to fall.

Ms. Short: There is no doubt that, because of a combination of schemes, a pre-election boom and other factors, there has been some improvement in the economy. However, in the core of Birmingham, six constituencies —300,000 people—are living with unemployment of 20 per cent. That is the scale of the problem. Since 1979, the hon. Gentleman's Government have destroyed 2 million manufacturing jobs, and we are nowhere near replacing them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is luckier in Kidderminster, but in the centre of the west midlands the position is still very bad.

Mr. Coombs: The hon. lady will be pleased to know that I shall be dealing with Birmingham next.
The survey of Birmingham and the west midlands by the chamber of commerce shows precisely the same trends. Figures produced by Birmingham city council show that unemployment in the west midlands fell last year by 60,000, which is nearly a sixth, and that the number of people in employment in the west midlands rose by 14,000 in the first half of the year. Most significant of all, although 7,000 of that increase were in service industries, 7,000 were in manufacturing industry. That optimism is


reflected on all sides in the west midlands. The convention centre, which is funded partly by the public sector, partly by the private sector and partly by European funds, represents £110 million of investment in a so-called depressed area, and it will create 2,000 jobs.

Ms. Short: It is in my constituency.

Mr. Coombs: I am very pleased to hear it.
The economic development association of east Birmingham — a venture created by the chamber of commerce, the CBI and the city council—will produce jobs. Last week we heard that the London—Edinburgh trust will spend £250 million in the centre of Birmingham backing its judgment of the economic health of the region.
This employment growth is dependent not on pumppriming—it is not at all dependent on restrictions on the working week—or public ownership but on improved competitiveness, increasing investment, increasing profits and increasing confidence, which is deep rooted and will last. Yesterday, on television John Egan predicted that profits and output of Jaguar would increase this year, next year and in 1989. The European economic assessment predicts that growth in the United Kingdom will be 2·6 per cent. next year, which is double the European average, and this is the seventh successive year that that has happened.
That is a picture of confidence and progress in employment creation. As the Minister said, there is no room for complacency and there are three sectors in which we should be doing more. There is no doubt that through their youth and adult training programme, which costs £3,100 million per year, the Government are doing an unprecedented amount. The private sector is not investing enough in training. It invests £2,000 million per year, which represents 0·15 per cent. of turnover, compared with 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. in West Germany and Japan respectively.
I am certain that the local employment network schemes that the Government have recently set up will have a beneficial effect, but as the recent consultative document on vocational and educational training shows, some small and medium-sized firms find the labyrinth of different funding and types of scheme difficult to penetrate. We must improve access for them in that regard.
With regard to further and higher education, the Government have an excellent record in improving access to higher education as a percentage of the age group. However, it is still too difficult for people who want to retrain throughout their careers. It has been estimated by the OECD that over the next 20 or 25 years such will be the pace of technological change that people will have to change significantly the way in which they do their jobs three or four times throughout their working lives.
All firms in the west midlands are unanimous in believing that we must continue to cut taxation: first, because it is an engine of growth; secondly, because it gives an incentive for employers to give jobs through higher consumption and higher spending — national insurance contributions should be reduced to facilitate that; thirdly, because it provides an incentive to work for staff who otherwise would not have one.
I recently opened an employment centre in my constituency and a consultant there said that 50 per cent.

of people would be £10 better off per week in work rather than out of it—having taken all benefits into account—yet they will not accept the jobs that are offered to them.
We should reduce taxes at the top end so that revenues increase. People in the top 5 per cent. of the population will then spend a higher proportion of the tax take than if they were taxed at very high levels.
In taking these measures, we shall continue to restore the enterprise economy for the benefit of all sections of society. Equally, as sure as God made little apples, if we accept the Labour party's strategy we shall be walking backwards into the future and we shall condemn Britain to the low living standards and high unemployment levels that appertained and will appertain in east European countries.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Nobody is more pleased than I when men and women find work. However, there are still many reservations in the Liberal party about the figures that the Minister has presented. They will continue until the Government stop economising with the truth and include the estimated 826,000 economically active job seekers who are ineligible for benefit. The Government should include those who have been switched to invalidity and sickness benefits, or the older unemployed who receive the long-term rate of supplementary benefit, but who would still like to work.
Since 1982 the unemployment figures have become less representative of those who are unemployed. Thanks to the restart scheme there has been a dramatic increase in the number of claimants who have switched to sickness, invalidity and long-term rate benefits. It is interesting that the Minister has today announced a new development of restart—a questionnaire to check availability for work. We all know about the effects of that infamous availability for work test. It has reduced the number of claimants entering the register, not always because they are not looking for work but because they cannot understand the forms, cannot fill them in or because of the confusion that has arisen from them. The people who are likely to be excluded are those who find it most difficult to find work but who are most in need of help.
When all those points are taken into account, the restart and availability test has resulted, according to the unemployment unit, in approximately 10,150 unemployed people per month disappearing from the figures.
But there is no value in simply bandying unemployment figures. The debate is taking place at the end of 1987, as our thoughts are turning towards 1988. There could not be a better moment to reassess the economy and the unemployment position, not least because the Chancellor is beginning to consider his next Budget.
The Sunday Times yesterday suggested that there is tremendous tension in the Treasury over what to do. One view is in favour of massive tax cuts and reform, but, according to the Sunday Times, senior Treasury officials believe that tax reduction must be accompanied by substantial cuts in Government borrowing if they are not to lead to stronger inflationary pressures and a bigger balance of payments deficit. In other words, the Chancellor is feeding imports and risking inflation in a consumer boom that is still doing too little to tackle the basic needs of the economy for the next century.
Nor is our continuing growth certain, despite the Minister describing unemployment as being on an


established downward trend. The Chancellor predicts 2·5 per cent., growth for next year, but that is open to doubt, given the continuing stock market instability, a still limp United States policy on its budget-trade deficit—witness the most recent figures — and a continuing lack of international co-operation.
Even if growth reaches 2·5 per cent. it is most uncertain that current reductions in unemployment figures will be maintained. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research predicts that unemployment will decline only fractionally by the end of 1988, assuming a 2–5 per cent. growth rate. According to the National Institute Economic Review, which predicted a growth in output of 2·4 per cent. for next year, that rate of growth will slow to 1·5 per cent. in the last three months, with the same sluggish pace maintained in 1989.
Given that prediction, not only will the fall in unemployment slow next year, but, without new initiatives, the number of jobless will begin to rise again.
We know that tax cuts and unemployment affect some rather differently than others.
The Minister mentioned employment figures and excessive wage growth. Perhaps hon. Members will forgive me for talking about my part of the country. Cornwall is always included with Devon when the unemployment figures are produced. Therefore, Cornwall is seen as an area of prosperity. A closer look shows how unrepresentative that can be. For example, the gross domestic product per person in Cornwall is only half of that in London and 60 per cent. of that in Devon. We are thankful that employment in Cornwall is looking better but it still comes high in the poverty league. In a recent report of the Low Pay Unit one of its wages rights advisers said:
I was stunned at how low paid people in Cornwall are. We knew they were not well paid down there, particularly young workers. But we have had reports from a number of people working in garages for really low money, and from one woman who was getting just 50 pence an hour. The situation in Cornwall stands out quite a way.
Indeed it does. The fact is that 40 per cent. of workers in Cornwall are low-paid compared to 25 per cent. elsewhere in Britain.
Too many of the jobs created in Cornwall remain seasonal or part-time. They are not bread-winning jobs but follow the national trend of an increase in part-time work. For example, Tesco's in Truro closed down one site to move to another and the jobs changed overnight. They changed through sackings and then re-employment from full-time bread-winning jobs to part-time low-wage shop work. It often employed young people working part-time for a short period to earn pin money. That is a tragedy. It is reflected in the national figures. Employment in agriculture is down, as is employment in energy and water supply. Employment in manufacturing reduced by a full 130,000 between March 1986 and 1987. Employment in construction is up slightly but the real boom is in service industries with a 351,000 increase. The jobs created are not bread-winning jobs. Even in my county where pay is 17 per cent. below the national average the jobs do not match up to that.
Too little account is taken of particular needs. A good example is the fishing industry, where Government policy of conservation too often penalises local fishermen. They cannot sail away as the others do who arrive, fish out the quota and then leave.
There are possible solutions to that. We should be investing in long-term prospects for full-time, well-paid

employment and concentrating on the role of the Government in areas such as infrastructure. We should enable local government to take more local initiatives and encourage manufacturers and service industries to move into their areas and we should help local small businesses to set up and grow. That is why the development agencies are so important and why they must continue and their role be enhanced. New agencies should be financed in more of the English regions. Not all poverty — the Government should be reminded of this on every possible occasion — takes place in the inner cities where the schemes are being expanded. Many people in my area feel that once again they have been forgotten by Government initiatives and policy.
It is possible to create long-term jobs by reducing costs caused by poor infrastructure. We should increase skills and increase value-added, particularly through local manufacturing and an increase in quality. It is possible to reduce those costs by concentrating Government effort on infrastructure in roads, rail, housing and advanced digital communication, none of which need add to the import boom. By concentrating on these things we can avoid the problems suffered by customers as well as businesses in such areas.
We need to cut back on the red tape and the bureaucracy where appropriate, particularly for small busineses. That can be done by decreasing the national insurance contribution by 25 per cent. for employers in assisted areas and areas of high unemployment. I hope — this is even more important — to see an industrial version of the agricultural advisory service for small businesses, particularly in areas affecting information, legal problems and accounting.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about cutting red tape. It is very easy for Opposition Members to say such things. Will he give us an example of some of the red tape and forms he would like to see cut out? My hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessor have made great efforts to reduce the burden of form-filling for small businesses. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us to which forms he is referring?

Mr. Taylor: One thing that could be done immediately would be to increase the VAT threshold. That. would remove a great deal of red tape from many small businesses just starting up.
None of the initiatives I have mentioned will work unless we increase skills. It is common knowledge that the United Kingdom has fewer graduates than its many competitors and we do not have the know-how in industrial skills. The youth training scheme will be a success only if we are able to enhance it in terms of quality and choice. Forcing young people on to courses they do not want does not help them and it will not help the other people who are willing participants and want to make the best possible use of the course. That can be seen in schools with the problem of 16-year-olds who do not want to be on certain courses but are forced to be there and who disrupt the course for others. That should not be inflicted on YTS trainees. But at least the youth training scheme is, at last, being improved in terms of quality and job training.
We need training investment schemes. Companies who invest properly in training should be helped. To provide variety we should encourage companies to make that vital


investment in our young people. It is sad that as the number of unemployed people decreases through statistical juggling a real effort to decrease unemployment through expanding further and higher education is not being made as it should. Instead, we are seeing a division between the privileged and the rest. We must see an increase in the numbers in further and higher education if we are to invest in the future. We should double the number by the year 2000 and beyond.
As the infrastructure is put in place and the skills increased, we can concentrate on increasing value added and quality. It makes no sense in Cornwall to export our raw fish and vegetables to Brittany for processing. We should be doing that ourselves and keeping the benefits of doing so. Indeed, Brittany's example is valuable. We recently held a conference, "Cornwall — The Way Ahead", in which we were told about the success of Brittany. I am delighted that English China Clays, local authorities and many other bodies are co-operating to take that initiative forward.
The conference looked at ways of increasing our prosperity and at developing more and better jobs. The experience of Britanny was our model for discussion. It had a free rein from the French Government to develop local initiative. Local power was decentralised. It was given the basic infrastructure investment on which to build. At that conference all views from across the political spectrum were represented and there was a common theme. First, there is the need to develop infrastructure, particularly the A30 through Cornwall. That applies to so many other areas in the country. Secondly, we discussed skills with science parks proposed for St. Austell drawing on the china clay industry and for Camborne drawing on the school of mines. It is that development of skills and the jobs that come with them that is vital across the country, particularly in areas so often written off as peripheral and which suffer high unemployment. Above all, there was an emphasis on the ability to take local initiatives and develop quality and value added.
All sides of the conference agreed on the need to draw together clear ideas and opportunities to a single development agency, large enough to attract support but small enough and decentralised enough to respond to local needs. That is why I believe that the model of development agencies throughout Britain is vital to our economic development. Simply singling out inner cities as flavour of the month will not do.
The speaker from Brittany who addressed us recommended that we draw up a short list of our needs, a few brief points out of the many hundreds we could think of that Cornwall should aim to achieve. I believe that the Government would do well to take on board a similar principle, especially the Chancellor as he looks towards his next Budget. First, we should tackle infrastructure as the main priority of central Government. It is the basis of a competitive economy and is a more adequate response to balance of payments fears than tax cuts will ever be. Secondly, we should expand education and quality of training alongside that so that we are not neglecting the next generation and the generation after that who will have to pay the bill for the Government's neglect. The Government are spending the revenues from North sea oil and privatisation. Those revenues will not be there for future generations to use. They should be used to rebuild

a fractured infrastructure and a decimated manufacturing base. Thirdly, we should free local people to take more local initiatives through decentralised government and independent development agencies.
That will give a sustainable increase in employment in all the regions which tax cuts and a consumer boom will not. They will be a far better use of the revenues which we have now but may not have in the future. The Chancellor should grasp the opportunity before we slide, once again, into the decline which is already staring at us on the near horizon.

Mr. James Cran: My speech will be much shorter than normal because of the length of some of the speeches through which I have had to sit and which have prevented many Conservative Members from speaking. Although it will not come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) that I disagree with his motion, I should like to congratulate him, as would most Conservative Members, on having taken the trouble and the time of the House to underline the "devastating effect" of unemployment. I do not disagree with him on that point. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that to Conservative Members unemployment was just a statistic. That was offensive and it is not the case.
I am not, as some Labour Members would say, some southern banker who has not seen unemployment. I know Sunderland, North rather well because I operated as a CBI director there. I well remember at least 20 managing directors in the constituency who said in conversation to me, "If only my work force would try to moderate their pay claims, I would be able to preserve jobs in my company." [Interruption.] I got that from the horse's mouth, and the Opposition did not. If that is what 20 managing directors say, perhaps the unemployment about which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North complained would have been lower.
I direct the attention of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North to Consett. I saw what happened when the ironworks closed and, of course, that was devastating for Consett's economy. Labour Members who pontificate on this subject should visit Consett. I should be the last person to say that it was perfect, but the enterprise now being developed there would never have been believed in 1978. It is outstanding. I know the west midlands at first hand. The absence of regional policy devastated that region and created unemployment. So there are two sides to the coin. I heard about neither from the Opposition.
Another point was noticeable by its absence in Labour Members' comments. If I were trying to adduce one reason for the unemployment in the northern region and in Sunderland, North, it would be the contribution of the work force and the trade unions. I saw the 20, 30 and even— I know that the Opposition do not like to hear this, but they will — 40 per cent. wage claims submitted to companies in the northern region and in Sunderland, North. As we have been told, they were non-competitive companies and could not afford to meet such claims. But would the Opposition listen to them? No, they would not; nor did the work force. That is why unemployment increased until soon after the Conservative Government took power.
I do not blame the work force for what happened. My view is — [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) would listen, he might, for once,


learn something. Perhaps he would like to make a point in his own time? No. Weak management contributed more to the downfall of some companies than the work forces.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cran: I shall not. I gave the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) the opportunity to intervene, but he did not take it.
There were far too many managers—[Interruption.] I am hitting home on a few points, which is why the Opposition are getting excited. Far too many managers in the northern region and in Sunderland, North adopted the "Easy live and quick die" philosophy of Sir Walter Scott. They said, "We shall not fight the excessive pay increases this year because there are too many other things to do. We shall fight them next year." But next year never came, until the Conservatives were elected in 1979. That is when a Chancellor, a Prime Minister and a Government made the industrial community and the work force address the economic facts of life.
It is clear that the Opposition have not done their homework. If they had, they would see that unit labour costs in the United Kingdom were sky-high, out of all proportion to those of any of our major competitors. Against such a background, can one wonder why unemployment occurred? I have given the reasons.

Mr. McLoughlin: We have heard all the talk from the Opposition about unemployment, but is it not a fact that no Labour Government have ever seen unemployment fall? They were all elected on a ticket of reducing unemployment, yet all left office with higher unemployment than when they entered it.

Mr. Cran: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The record shows that unemployment has increased under every Labour Government.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cran: I have given way already. I want to continue my speech, and other hon. Members want to contribute in the debate. Perhaps I shall give way once in Standing Committee on the Employment Bill.
Our international competitive position was disastrous, and the Labour Government's actions had a great deal to do with that. As has been made clear, the position now has been reversed. The environment is totally different. I see moderate trade unions, for which I and the industrial community are grateful. I see a hard-working and reasonable work force.

Mrs. Mahon: That is insulting.

Mr. Cran: It is not insulting; it is a fact. If the hon. Lady cannot recognise facts, that is her problem.
I see also far tougher management than I have seen before in my life. Those factors and Government policy have resulted in what the Opposition do not like to see —an economic miracle, the like of which I have never before seen in my lifetime — [Interruption.] The Opposition will not put me off my stride. Northern Members of Parliament are numbered not just among the Opposition. I too am a northern Member and I find that in the past year unemployment in every constituency on Humberside has fallen, in some dramatically. If I had time, I should take another time phase to show what is happening. If the Opposition would like to meet me outside, I shall show them the statistics.
The Opposition should remember that Humberside, where I operate, is also in the north of England, and industry there is extremely bullish. If only the Opposition, like the Government, would leave industry alone to get on with its job, I guarantee that it would continue to create the resources which all of us would like to distribute. Leave industry alone and it will do the work. That is what the Government are doing.
There are four ways in which we could help to continue to alleviate unemployment. First, I believe passionately that regional policy has failed the regions of the United Kingdom. Essentially, all that it has done is to provide a temporary jobs lifeboat. Over the past 20 or 30 years, no real enterprise culture has grown up in the regions. When a recession comes along, all the branch factories close down and unemployment is created. I hope that the Government are intent on doing what I understand them to say that they will do, which is to take a radical view of regional policy.
Secondly, we need to accelerate the deregulation of small businesses. I feel strongly that small businesses would employ far more people if they did not have e to put up with the burden of endless regulations, relating not only to people but, I regret to say, to the statistics for which the Government continue to ask.
Thirdly, I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) about employers taking a bigger role in training. I would go so far as to say that, given present levels of corporate profitability, it is quite obscene that so few companies are prepared to put their hands in their pockets and pay for their own training. Too many companies are willing to poach from some company up the road. That must end, and I hope that a strong message will go out from the House of Commons to that effect.
Finally, I see dangerous signs for unit labour costs in the United Kingdom. Unless we contain our unit labour costs, unemployment will increase again to the levels that we have experienced—as sure as night follows day and spring follows winter. I hope that the Government will send out a strong message to the CBI, the chambers of commerce and the TUC to contain, and to continue to contain, unit labour costs.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on tabling this motion. Incidentally, I regret that a motion of this kind was not tabled by our Front Bench; it should have been. The motion clearly sums up the character of unemployment and the way in which we should deal with it. During our debates on unemployment, I hear much argument about the so-called nitty-gritty—about immediate questions such as whether we should have schemes to take youngsters off the dole —but I rarely hear about the nature of the system that creates unemployment. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to that very subject in his motion.
I do not argue with hon. Members who say that unemployment is bound to go down for a period. Of course it will go down—just as it will rise again later as long as this system is in existence. The very nature of the economic system under which we live leads to booms and slumps; after a slump there is inevitably another boom. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) would keep his mouth shut for a few moments, he


might learn something — as the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) said to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) a few moments ago.
As a young working man studying economics in the evenings, I read Adam Smith and Ricardo — all the bourgeois economists — as well as Marx and others. Having studied the various economic systems, I concluded that the capitalist system was bound to lead to unemployment and poverty for masses of workers and that it was bound to lead to some people getting extremely rich. In this society, the rich have got richer and the poor are getting poorer. There is no question about that at all. No matter how Conservative Members argue, that is what is happening, and for once the statistics prove it beyond doubt.
I have heard today the argument that all that is wrong is that the workers have demanded high wages. I heard that when I was an apprentice joiner at 14 years of age. I remember hearing that the slump of those days was the fault of the workers who had demanded higher wages and better conditions of employment and that if they had accepted low wages, everything would have been all right and we would have had full employment. That was in the 1930s, and matters improved only relatively. It was the war, and nothing else but the war, that got rid of unemployment. I will tell hon. Members a story that amazed me at the time. [Interruption.] Conservative Members had better remember that during the war years some of us fought for a different type of society and for full employment. That was what we demanded when we came back and we began to get it under the Labour Government. When I came back—

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman came back to a Labour Government and unemployment.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman had better behave himself. I should like to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have never seen so much hooliganism in the House as has come from young Conservative Members since the last election. It is absolutely disgraceful. The reason for that is that they are now ideologically so sectarian that they cannot understand that there is a better society worth working for—rather than the society being bolstered by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer: No, I will not give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like it, but, if the cap fits, he must wear it.
Let me explain something that I learnt when I came back from the war. I was a building worker, so I know about unemployment and work. I discovered that a labourer, who had been unemployed for nine years, never stopped working. He would work through his break and his lunch hour. He worked the whole time. When I said to him, "You don't have to work like a madman", he said, "I was out of work for nine years. 1 walked up and down this country seeking employment and could not get a job. Now that I am back out of the forces and I have a job, I intend to keep it." Conservative Members do not seem to understand that that is the nature of our capitalist society.
I am not going to make a long speech. In all the arguments that we hear about the immediate action that

the Government can take, we are playing with the real issue — whether we are going to allow this type of society to remain and continue with an economic system that will create unemployment, even though there will be booms at times. That is the issue. If Conservative Members are serious about unemployment and are as worried about it as we are, they must bear that in mind.
I do not deny that some Conservative Members are worried about unemployment in their constituencies. The great Macmillan, who wrote "The Middle Way", accepted the concepts of Keynes because he was so concerned about unemployment and realised that there had to be Government intervention in economic affairs. Conservative Members today have even forgotten what Macmillan said. His ideas have been thrown out the window and described as creeping Socialism. In fact, they were an attempt to bring decent conditions of employment and a decent society to this country. If Conservative Members are seriously concerned about unemployment, let them give the matter a little more deep thought than they have so far.
The growth of technology clearly means that fewer workers will be employed. If increased wealth is then produced, the question that immediately arises is how to redistribute that wealth and ensure that more people are employed. That can be achieved only by reorganising society in an intelligent manner, not by putting profit before the interests of the mass of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like Russia."] I have never been an ardent supporter of the internal system in the Soviet Union, but we could learn an important lesson from the Russians. There has not been a rise in the standard of living for all the people there, because in my opinion they have not had sufficient democracy; but democracy, combined with their planning, could have led to a decent society. What is wrong in the Soviet Union is not the planning, but the lack of democracy. Our democracy, with the right kind of democratic planning, could bring about full employment. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but, unless we take the action proposed in my hon. Friend's motion, unemployment will be even worse that it is now. There is one single reason for that. The stock market has begun to crash. That is a sign of the nature of the crisis in the system—a crisis that will not be overcome as simply as some people suppose.
The answer is what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has proposed: a genuine, democratic, Socialist answer. That is what I believe in and that is what my forefathers in the movement believed in. That is the answer to unemployment, poverty and misery. It is far better to fight for that solution than for the selfishness represented by the Conservative party.

Mr. David Martin: I in no way wish to impugn the sincerity and passion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but I disagree fundamentally with a great deal of what he has said. His prescription is that Socialism has never been tried in this country and that no Government have ever tried the system that he believes would work.
The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's solution, as with the motion proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), is that it is a Utopian dream of human nature which simply does not exist. The Opposition have made many indictments of the


Government's actions, as though unemployment and all the evils of society were the fault of the Government, but what they are really indicting is human nature. Their Utopian system reminds me of the words of Colin Francis:

"I am going where there are rivers of wine
The mountains bread and honey
Where kings and queens do mind the swine
And the poor have all the money."

The hon. Member for Walton will never see a society like that however long he lives because no one, least of all a Conservative Government, will implement the prescription that he proposes. Moreover, no Labour Government will have the chance to do so because since 1974 the electorate has consistently rejected any such notion and will continue to do so for as long as the prescription set out in the motion is on offer.
I wish to contribute something more positive than the litany of woe that we have heard from the Opposition, who have concentrated on industrial decline and the loss of certain markets and certain types of job. The ceaseless talk about the slum economy, as described by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and others, means that new opportunities for economic expansion and employment are likely to be missed.
My own constituency has experience of this. Many jobs in Portsmouth disappeared when the dockyard became Her Majesty's naval base. Instead of throwing up their hands in horror like the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) in an attitude of doom and gloom, the people of Portsmouth thought about what could be done to attract new jobs and to encourage people to retrain in new skills. Thousands of people who thought that they might never work again have found new employment in and around the area.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is in no way typical of the people of Halifax. They are hard-working, industrious people and have reduced unemployment in the area to under 12 per cent. What she says in the House —

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member is making a speech, not an intervention. Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin: I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that path, as I wish the enterprise and initiative of the people of Portsmouth to have a hearing in the House as well.
The Opposition spoke of the evils of international business, but this country did not begin the trend to internationalisation of business or the change in the ratio between manufacturing and service jobs. We could not possibly stand against the international realities that gave rise to those features. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North produced the bogies of international financiers and businesses which provide jobs and then suddenly withdraw. The number of jobs provided in this country by those who have been encouraged to come here by increasingly free markets and free trade is legion. The habits and conditions of employment that they have brought have created many jobs in my constituency and in the constituencies of Labour as well as Conservative Members.
It is true that the proportion of jobs in manufacturing industry has fallen while the proportion of jobs in the

service industries has risen, but the same has been true in Germany, where the proportion has fallen from 17 per cent. to 13 per cent.—

Mr. McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 308.

Division No. 109]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
George, Bruce


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Donald
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gould, Bryan


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hardy, Peter


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Haynes, Frank


Battle, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Beckett, Margaret
Hinchliffe, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boateng, Paul
Hoyle, Doug


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Buchan, Norman
Ingram, Adam


Caborn, Richard
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
John, Brynmor


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lambie, David


Clay, Bob
Lamond, James


Clelland, David
Leighton, Ron


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Coleman, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livingstone, Ken


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Tom


Cox, Tom
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum


Cummings, J.
McFall, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunningham, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alastair
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dobson, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Doran, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, James
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morley, Elliott


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Parry, Robert


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Pendry, Tom


Galbraith, Samuel
Pike. Peter


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Prescott, John






Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Redmond, Martin
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Reid, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Turner, Dennis


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wall, Pat


Rogers, Allan
Walley, Ms Joan


Rooker, Jeff
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N.


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winnick, David


Short, Clare
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Anthony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Harry Cohen and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Eddie Loyden.


Steinberg, Gerald



NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Allason, Rupert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alton, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amos, Alan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cormack, Patrick


Aspinwall, Jack
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, David
Critchley, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dicks, Terry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dover, Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Farr, Sir John


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
French, Douglas


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gardiner, George


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gill, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Burns, Simon
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Alastair


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Chris
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butterfill, John
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gow, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Cartwright, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gregory, Conal


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Chope, Christopher
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Churchill, Mr
Grist, Ian





Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hawkins, Christopher
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Needham, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hind, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howells, Geraint
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Irving, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Price, Sir David


Jackson, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Janman, Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rost, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Knox, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Latham, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speed, Keith


Maclean, David
Speller, Tony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Squire, Robin


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Lewis


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mates, Michael
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Summerson, Hugo


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)






Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Waller, Gary


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Walters, Dennis


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Ward, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wells, Bowen


Thorne, Neil
Wheeler, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waldegrave, Hon William



Walden, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Wallace, James
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Three different points of view are set out in the first group of amendments. The Government's position is set out in Government new clause 5, the official Opposition's position is set out in new clause 6 and I and a number of my hon. Friends have set out our view in new clause 9. The official Opposition's position is a Left-wing position, the Government's position is a compromise position, and those who are more absolutely inclined will be attracted by new clause 9.
I respectfully suggest that the House would find it easier if we had the opportunity to vote on each of those three propositions. I should be grateful if the Chair would give some guidance so that we may know how the debate will end.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman's speech is very persuasive. I can tell him that Mr. Speaker has determined that there can be a Division on new clause 6, but that a Division is not possible on new clause 9. I refer the hon. Gentleman to new clause 5 because that assumes the continued existence of section 71, whereas the new clause that stands in his name seeks to repeal section 71. Therefore, should new clause 5 fall, Mr. Speaker would certainly allow a Division on new clause 9.

Mr. Budgen: Are you, Madam Deputy Speaker, advising those hon. Members who support new clause 9 to vote against new clause 5?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Far be it from me to give guidance to hon. Members on such matters.

New Clause 5

RACE RELATIONS MATTERS

'—(1) Except to the extent permitted by subsection (2) below, section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (local authorities to have regard to need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups) shall not require or authorise a local authority to exercise any function regulated by section 17 above by reference to a noncommercial matter.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, nothing in section 17 above shall preclude a local authority from—

(a) asking approved questions seeking information or undertakings related to workforce matters and considering the responses to them, or
(b) including in a draft contract or draft tender for a contract terms or provisions relating to workforce matters and considering the responses to them,

if, as the case may be, consideration of the information, the giving of the undertaking or the inclusion of the term is reasonably necessary to secure compliance with the said section 71.
(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply to the function of terminating a subsisting contract and, in relation to functions as respects approved lists or proposed contracts, does not authorise questions in other than written form.


(4) Where it is permissible under subsection (2) above to ask a question it is also permissible to make, if it is in writing, an approved request for evidence in support of an answer to the question.
(5) The Secretary of State may specify—

(a) questions which are to be approved questions for the purposes of this section; and
(b) descriptions of evidence which, in relation to approved questions, are to be approved descriptions of evidence for those purposes;

and the powers conferred by this subsection shall be exercised in writing.
(6) Any specification under subsection (5) above may include such consequential or transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(7) In this section—
approved question" means a question for the time being specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above; "approved request for evidence" means a request for evidence, of a description for the time being specified by the Secretary of State under that subsection in relation to an approved question;
workforce matters" means matters falling within paragraph (a), but no other paragraph, of subsection (5) of section 17 above;
and any expression used in this section and section 17 above has the same meaning in this section as in that section.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6 — Contracts— compliance in relation to public supply or works contracts—
'(1) It is the duty of every public authority to which this section applies, in exercising in relation to its public supply or works contracts, any proposed or any subsisting such contract, as the case may be, any function regulated by section 17 to exercise that function with reference to the enforcement of the law by any appropriate agency and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment.
(2) The public authorities to which this section applies are those specified in Schedule 2 to this Act.
(3) The contracts which are public supply or work contracts for the purposes of this section are contracts for the supply of goods or materials, for the supply of services or for the execution of works.
(4) A local authority may in pursuance of the functions regulated by this section, have regard to any of the following:

(a) the terms and conditions of employment by contractors of their workers, the arrangements for the training of their workforces, or the employment (in the case of an inner city area or region of high unemployment) of a reasonable percentage of their workforce from among the local unemployed which shall be determined by the authority;
(b) the actual or potential membership of contractors of industrial, trade or professional associations, technical guarantee schemes or any other associations or schemes pertaining to their competence to perform the contract;
(c) in co-operation with the relevant local employment office, the employment by contractors of disabled people in accordance with the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

(5) In this section, any term defined in section 17(8) below shall having the meaning thereby ascribed to it.
(6) In this section, 'inner city area' and 'region of high unemployment' shall have the meanings set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(7) The provisions of sections 17 to 21 shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.
(8) This section shall have effect from the date of Royal Assent.'.

New clause 7— Contracts compliance in relation to public supply or works contracts (Race relations provisions)
`(1) It is the duty of every public authority to which this section applies, in exercising in relation to its public supply or works contracts, any proposed or any subsisting such contract, as the case may be, any function regulated by section 17 to exercise that function with reference to the enforcement of the law by any appropriate agency and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment.
(2) The public authorities to which this section applies are those specified in Schedule 2 to this Act.
(3) The contracts which are public supply or work contracts for the purposes of this section are contracts for the supply of goods or materials, for the supply of services or for the execution of works.
(4) A local authority may in pursuance of the functions regulated by this section, have regard to any of the following:

(a) the country or territory of origin of supplies to, or the location in any country or territory of the business activities or interests of, contractors or associated bodies where it may be reasonably necessary to the pursuance of its duties under the Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976;
(b) observance of the Race Relations Act 1976, and in particular, the carrying out by the authority of its duties under Section 71 of that Act.

(5) In this section, any term defined in section 17(8) below shall have the meaning thereby ascribed to it.
(6) In this section, 'inner city area' and 'region of high unemployment' shall have the meanings set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(7) The provisions of sections 17 to 21 shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.
(8) This section shall have effect from the date of Royal Assent.'

New clause 9—Race Relations Matters. (No. 2)—
`Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 is hereby repealed.'.

Amendment No. 9, in page 14, line 3, leave out clause 17.

Government amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 11, clause 18, in page 17, line 1, leave out subsections (1) to (3).

Government amendment No. 14.

Amendment No. 15, in page 17, line 43, leave out subsection (9).

Amendment No. 16, in page 17, line 43, after '(10)', insert 'and (10A)'.

Amendment No. 17, in page 18, line 1, leave out subsection (10).

Amendment No. 18, in page 18, line 7, at end insert—
`(10A) Nothing in Section 17 above shall preclude a Local authority from doing by reference to a non-commercial matter any act in the exercise of a function regulated by Section 17 above if the matter falls within paragraph (a) (but no other paragraph) of subsection (5) of that Section and the doing of the act is reasonably necessary to secure that the function is carried out with due regard (a) to the need to comply with the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.'.

Government amendment No. 20.

Amendment No. 21, in page 18, line 12, after '(10)' insert 'and (10A)'.

Government amendment No. 22.

Amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 17, after '(10)' insert 'and (10')'.

Amendment No. 24, in page 19, line 22, leave out Clause 20.

Government amendment No. 25.

Amendment No. 31, schedule 6, in page 47, line 8, at end insert—


'1976 c. 74 Race Relations Act 1976 Section 71'.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the interchange which we have just heard, it would be wise for me to leave it to hon. Members on both sides of the House to advance their arguments for the amendments and new clauses. I shall seek to reply to the debate at the end, but, in the meantime, I shall simply move the new clause.
This new clause and the consequential amendments fulfil an undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government during the Standing Committee's consideration of the provisions in part II of the Bill, which deals with the supply and works contracts of public authorities.
As at present drafted, the Bill contains an exemption —in clause 18(10)—which allows authorities to carry out their contractual function with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination. This is in recognition of the statutory duty placed on local authorities by section 71(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976. However, local authorities also have a statutory duty under section 71(b) of that Act to secure that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. We have received many representations to the effect that authorities should be allowed to carry out their duty under both section 71(a) and section 71(b).
As my hon. and learned Friend recognised in Committee, there is force in the argument that nothing in the Bill should prevent authorities from carrying out their existing statutory duties. Limiting the exemption in clause 18(10) to authorities, section 71(a) duty fails to meet that principle.
In order to remedy this, we have tabled this new clause dealing with the way in which local authorities should carry out their section 71 duties within the contractual process. The Race Relations Act requires local authorities to have regard to race relations matters when exercising their various functions. In accordance with undertakings given by Ministers to the effect that nothing in the Bill will prevent authorities carrying out existing statutory duties, I believe that we should now seek to recognise the duty placed on local authorities by both parts of section 71.
However, we have to consider very carefully how the Bill could be amended in a way that does not permit abuses of the section 71 duty, such as that suggested in the Opposition's new clause, nor must it impose excessive burdens on contractors.
Hon. Members will see that the new clause proposes that authorities should be allowed to ask written questions about race relations practices relating to the noncommercial matters in clause 17(5)(a).

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is my right hon. Friend saying that, in this day and age, the Government really believe that local authorities should have a duty to
promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups
in contracting companies used by local authorities; in other words, not within their own labour force but within other people's labour forces? If my right hon. Friend believes that, will he tell us how we should avoid a massive ding-dong and contention between local government and the people it seeks to employ?

Mr. Ridley: I like to respond to any speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). However, we are proposing this course, which will allow local authorities to perform their statutory duties, yet, at the same time, prevent them from exploiting or abusing those opportunities because of the procedure which I am describing to my hon. Friend. If he will bear with me, he will see that there is logic in what I say.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is precisely why I am pursuing this point. The Secretary of State has said that there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent local authorities from carrying out their statutory duties. I entirely agree with him. But will he tell the House how the Bill would prevent local authorities from carrying out their statutory duties when they would be at liberty to do so?

Mr. Ridley: I hope that I may call my hon. Friend "my hon. Friend". He did not extend that courtesy to me. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent local authorities from abusing the contractual process, but we do not seek to contradict or override any statutory duty under any other Act of Parliament. In other words, we approach the Bill without using it as a way of amending any other piece of legislation or affecting any other responsibility that has previously been placed on local authorities. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, if he seeks to make such changes, the right place is not in this Bill.

Mr. Marlow: Why not?

Mr. Ridley: It is simply designed to fit local authorities' tendering procedures to the law as it stands in relation to other matters.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ridley: I have already given way to my hon. Friend. We seem to be having a microcosm of a debate during my formal speech presenting the Government's amendments.

Mr. Budgen: Since my right hon. Friend has to admit that new clause 9 is in order and that, indeed, other provisions in other Acts are repealed by the Bill, it is not good enough simply to say that it would not be appropriate. Will my right hon. Friend please explain why he believes that it is desirable to retain section 71? He clearly has the opportunity, if he wishes to do so, to repeal it today.

Mr. Ridley: I am not for one moment questioning your decision, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the clause is in order. That is not part of my case, and I have never said that it is. My hon. Friend has put his argument, and I shall respond to him at a later stage. I merely want to explain what the Government are proposing so that my hon. Friend may consider whether it meets what he wants.
If it is reasonably necessary for local authorities to ask written questions about race relations practices in pursuance of their duty under section 71(a) and (b) of the Race Relations Act 1976—but only if such questions are in a form that is specified by the Secretary of State—we shall cut out the abuse of section 71. I am sure that that point is in the minds of many of my hon. Friends. Authorities would be allowed to take account of the answers to questions in exercising their contractual functions prior to entering into a contract, but they would not be able to terminate a contract on race relations grounds. By specifying the questions to be asked, we shall


enable authorities to fulfil their duties without imposing too excessive a burden on contractors, who, until now, have been faced with different questionnaires from different authorities. Some questionnaires have been extremely long and gone into quite unreasonable detail.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ridley: I have said that I shall not give way any more. I am looking forward to hearing my hon. Friend's speech. I have given way three times already. However, I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend has said that the burden would not be too excessive. How long is the process likely to take? How burdensome is the burden going to be? On a specific point, my right hon. Friend is going to bring forward a list of questions that can be asked. Will he discuss the questions with the Commission for Racial Equality before they are brought forward?

Mr. Ridley: I shall certainly discuss the questions with the Commission for Racial Equality, local authority associations and anybody else who has an interest in such consultation. At the moment, I envisage about four or five questions. My hon. Friend will agree that that is fewer than I have here. I have the Sheffield city council department of employment and economic development questionnaire. Its pages are not numbered, but it is getting on for 100 pages to be filled in. It would take several months' work to supply the amount of information that is required. It is standard issue from Sheffield city council, and in future it will not be allowed. Indeed, the council will be allowed to ask only the questions that I have set out. The consultations will take place as soon as possible so that authorities can take account of the approved questions once the Bill is enacted.
The drafting of the new clause achieves a sensible balance between the two points of view that have been expressed on both sides of the House. There will be those who claim that local authorities will not be able to exercise their section 71 duty in ways that they would like, and there will be those who claim that section 71 has no place at all in the contractual process. The clause fulfils our undertaking in Committee to amend the Bill in a manner that does not permit abuse of duty and does not impose excessive burdens on contractors. I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: First, the good news, which is that, by this clause, the Secretary of State is not only embracing but, in effect, nationally codifying a major aspect of Labour policy. I am talking about contract compliance. I have absolutely no problem about congratulating the Government on having the good sense and open-mindedness to adopt what is, after all, a radical interventionist policy. Many Labour councils that have been busy implementing contract compliance as a means of furthering equal opportunities employment are paid a great compliment by the Secretary of State, because—make no mistake about it—contract compliance as a policy for advancing equal opportunities was first introduced in this country by the Labour-controlled Greater London council. It has since been exclusively pursued and developed by Labour councils.
However, the Government's policy on contract compliance is confused and contradictory. Clauses in the

Local Government Bill to outlaw non-commercial considerations appear to have been introduced for two reasons: first, in response to pressure from a narrow group of employers' associations, who wish to keep the employment practices of some of their members from public scrutiny, and, secondly, as a reaction to an ill-informed tabloid press campaign about local authorities imposing "political conditions" on contractors.
The debate on part II of the Bill in Committee revealed that contract compliance is a serious policy that has been widely followed in the United States of America.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does that make it good?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman may intervene if he wishes to do so. He asked, "Does that make it good?" In the home of free enterprise and market forces, contract compliance and equal opportunities are a normal part of commercial activity. Any major organisation in the public or private sectors of the United States of America would almost certainly have an equal opportunities manager. The hon. Gentleman asked whether that is a good thing. It is a good thing. It has made major advances in the United States of America for employment opportunities for women, for people from black and ethnic communities and for people with disabilities. We on the Opposition side regard that as important social progress.

Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the Labour party is looking to the United States for examples of contract law, labour law and other laws? Does he wish us to emulate the United States right across the range of these matters or is he just being highly selective?

Dr. Cunningham: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot crawl out of the black pit that he is in by way of an intervention such as that. The reality is that it is a civilised way in which to provide equal opportunities for people. That is what the United States has found. We are saying that we in this country, particularly those in inner-city areas, can learn lessons from that. I understand that it is the Government's intention, and even that of the hon. Gentleman, to try to aid inner-city areas during the next few years of their tenure of office. However, in case the hon. Gentlman is in any doubt, we need not even look to the United States of America. We need only to look to the Northern Ireland Office of this Government and to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has followed exactly that course in announcing that it is the Government's intention to legislate on equal opportunities in Northern Ireland. That is exactly what the Government intend to do. I can go further and tell them that the Institute of Personnel Management's independently commissioned study entitled "Contract Compliance—the U.K. Experience" finds that contract compliance is not only useful as a means of fair employment practices with respect to recruitment, selection and training, but also makes good economic sense.
The Government's own policy document on Northern Ireland reiterates the commonly held belief. It states:
Equality of opportunity in employment is a vital concern in Northern Ireland.
The document goes on:
It is essential for economic prosperity and fundamental to a democratic society.
That was said by another Cabinet Minister — the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Will Conservative


Members support it in the case of Northern Ireland, or will they oppose it? Hon. Members say that it is wrong. It seems that in the new year there will be all sorts of revolts, objections and divisions in the Conservative party on those issues.
7.30 pm
That point seems to have been lost on the Minister for Local Government who said in Committee:
Equal opportunities policies are normally regarded as social matters. Commercial matters are matters directly relevant to the contractual process — for example, competence, capacity and cost — while other matters, irrelevant to that process, are properly described as non-commercial."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 November 1987; c. 780.]
I ask the Minister, who is right: he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who said that those matters are
essential for economic prosperity and fundamental to a democratic society.
That illustrates the absolute confusion of the Government on those important matters.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member is looking for evidence of consistency between the Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and myself. He should remember that in Committee my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that
Local authorities should not be in the business of setting themselves up as extra-statutory enforcement agencies on matters that are already the subject of existing statute and which already have, where appropriate, their own enforcement processes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 November 1987; c. 793.]
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976 deals with all those matters and there is no need for local government to be involved at all.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for that intervention —I do not often say that to him. What he said is true, and it will be interesting to see whether the Minister of State votes for new clause 5. He will have to decide whether the Committee is right or whether what his right hon. Friend has just said is right.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
Equality of opportunity in employment is a vital concern in Northern Ireland. It is central to personal dignity, to the best use of individual talent and to business efficiency.
I applaud the right hon. Gentleman for saying that. He is absolutely right and Opposition Members can only regret the utter confusion, mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton, North, between the Front Bench and the Back Bench and inside the Cabinet on these matters.
The Government have tried to hide their embarrassment by terminological wrangling. When faced with the incompatibility of their two policies, the Minister with responsibilities for industry in Northern Ireland, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), said:
We don't accept contract compliance. What we're saying is that if a company wishes to win an order from Government it must first have obtained the Certificate of Practice which says and confirms that it operates fair practices within its company. We regard 'tender acceptance', together with 'grant denial' as the way ahead, and for technical reasons, as I've explained, we don't accept contract compliance.
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that local authorities, particularly Labour local authorities, would be happy to call their policies "tender acceptance". Of course new clause 5 does not go far enough, because although it tries

to deal somewhat narrowly with the race relations aspects of this matter, it totally ignores sexual discrimination, and the position of women and equal opportunities. It flies in the face of the view of the Equal Opportunities Commission. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) noticed that, because she tabled some positive amendments on that issue. I look forward to hearing what she has to say. The Equal Opportunities Commission has made that clear on more than one occasion.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not interested in the development of careers for women—the majority of the population in Britain. That is quite obvious because he has totally ignored them in new clause 5. The Equal Opportunities Commission said to the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary that the right of women should be included in exactly the same way as they are dealt with in section 17 of the Race Relations Act and that a similar duty as exists within the Sex Discrimination Act should be provided by the Government.
Perhaps worst of all is the Government's attitude in excluding people with disabilities from their amendment. The Government rejected the amendments designed to ensure that contractors uphold their duties under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. One of the saddest aspects of the matter is that it will hit hardest a section of the population who are already at a considerable disadvantage in the job market—people with disabilities.
That can easily be illustrated with reference to the experience of Labour-controlled Lambeth council, an authority whose attempts to put into effect equal opportunities for people with disabilities has been successful. In May 1986, the London borough of Lambeth decided not to seek exemption from its quota of 3 per cent. registered disabled people under the 1944 Act. The council was successful in recruiting more than 200 people with disabilities who were fully able to do the jobs on offer. Compulsory competitive tendering puts such progress and achievement in jeopardy. The Government know that, yet they turn their face against the reality and pretend that no such problems or risks exist. Failure to amend the Bill will almost certainly result in the job prospects of people with disabilities being severely diminished.
The Commission for Racial Equality, while it welcomes the Government's new clause, regrets that the Secretary of State has reserved to himself the power to set the questions and to define the evidence that may he sought. The commission considers it desirable that there should be regard to local variations. It says:
In the Commission's view the wording in clause 18(10) as originally drawn provided sufficient safeguards by entrusting the Courts with redress and protection against unreasonable demands. As a fail-safe device the Commission could ultimately have invoked its code-making powers in the employment sphere (S. 47 Race Relations Act 1976) which provides for extensive consultation followed by ministerial and parliamentary approval.
The Minister has chosen to ignore all that, because he wants to do as little as possible commensurate with meeting his statutory obligations. I cannot say that we are particularly enamoured with what the Secretary of State proposes to do. We are not opposed to it, but it does not go half far enough. I can hardly do better than quote what Baroness Platt, the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said in a letter of 24 September which was sent to various organisations. She wrote:


The Equal Opportunities Commission is very concerned at the effect this measure will have on achieving equal opportunities for women. In practice employers will be likely to give priority to measures which will influence whether or not they obtain contracts, thus dimishing, to a considerable degree, the importance they give to sexual discrimination. Equally seriously, the Government will have appeared to endorse these priorities.
We share Baroness Platt's view.
I hesitate to suggest that the Minister for Local Government was misleading the Committee when he said that the Government would not allow sex discrimination into the Bill because, unlike race, there was no existing statutory duty which applied significantly to local authorities. He said that if the Equal Opportunities Commission was to ask for such a power, it would be considered. It has asked for exactly that power and, apparently, having considered it, the Government have decided not to grant it. That is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from what the Secretary of State said. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman moved new clause 5 because his junior colleague is so confused—and so are the Government—that he would be hard pressed to make a speech which did not contradict what he has already said in Committee.
As if that were not enough, we should consider what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said when he appeared on "Weekend World" in an interview with Mr. Matthew Parris. He dealt with the ministerial excuse about the limitations being necessary because of Community law. Mr. Parris asked:
Reading between the lines, are you saying that the EEC problems can be confined to one narrow area of contract law"?
The Chancellor replied:
I think I am more or less saying that. I think the so called EEC problem is a very narrow legal point. I don't think there's any inhibition in finding other ways of providing local training, local jobs out of all other activities, the building activities, the opening of new business, encouraging of new business that the government is going in for.
So there we have yet another Cabinet Minister expressing yet another view.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when we explored this in Committee and in correspondence afterwards, it has been made clear that there is no express prohibition of the type of contract compliance facility we are arguing for and that European law is there to be moulded if the Government take the initiative? Does he agree that there is nothing to stop the Government? There is no case law and no decision which expressly prohibits anything for which we are arguing.

Dr. Cunningham: I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that the Government do not want to act in respect of equal opportunities for women or for people with disabilities and they are doing the minimum required to keep on side with the Commission for Racial Equality.

Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that European law, or, for that matter, any other law, is there to be moulded? That would seem to be a thought too liberal for him or me to accept.

Dr. Cunningham: I said that I broadly agreed with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The substantive point, regardless of the words that the hon. Gentleman used, is that we have an opportunity in the Commission to take advantage of opportunities such as these. The hon. Gentleman said that we should set the standards in Europe, and I share that view. It is disgraceful that, on matters of human rights and dignity, once again, Britain is lagging behind the rest of Europe and the United States.
Will the Secretary of State stand by what he said? What is his real conflict with the Home Secretary in these matters? What will the Department of Employment's role be? How will the confusion end? Different Ministers are swanning around the country making promises to all sorts of people about more employment in inner cities and equal opportunities in Northern Ireland, yet this Secretary of State is legislating against what they are doing. There can be no greater confusion and no greater hypocrisy.
The limitations envisaged in new clause 5 are quite unnecessary. It would be far more sensible for the Government to accept new clause 6. The Government could then go wider when dealing with these matters, which are important to many millions of our fellow citizens. That is the Labour party's stance and why we tabled new clause 6. That is what we shall be voting on.

Mr. Budgen: The Labour party is in a fortunate and, tonight, united position. It believes in interventionist laws and that, by using the law, sometimes the criminal law, the views of ordinary people can be changed. It has long been consistent on this issue. It voted for the Race Relations Act 1965, the Race Relations Act 1968 and the Race Relations Act 1976. It has been a consistent supporter of what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) calls the human rights issue, as exemplified by the various Race Relations Acts.
It is hardly surprising that, while many of my hon. Friends and even some of my right hon. Friends will have little difficulty voting against the Opposition's new clause 6, they may conclude that the Government's stance is somewhat confused. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in a peculiarly embarrassing position. No doubt he voted in 1965 and 1968 against the Labour party's legislation, just as the remainder of the Tory party did, but he was one of only six Tories who, on 4 March 1976, voted against the Race Relations Bill receiving a Second Reading.
Those of us who felt strongly enough to say that we wanted no part of that nonsense did so because we believed that the Bill would grant special rights to a minority community.

Mr. Bernie Grant: What rights?

Mr. Budgen: The protection of the Race Relations Act. The hon. Gentleman should know that the position of that minority has not been improved by the existence of the Race Relations Act. Indeed, it has made the presence of that minority more resented than it would otherwise have been, because many people believe that the Act confers special rights and privileges on a minority who are identified mainly by the colour of their skin. That must have been the view of my right hon. Friend when he voted with me and others on 4 March 1976.
The Tory party has to come to terms with nonsense. It will often carefully and pragmatically nurture nonsense to its breast to give a happy attitude to what some Opposition Members would call the march of progress.
Those who wish to say that they would like to accept a bit of nonsense and wish not to be seen as rejecting too much, showing themselves to be practical, and capable of understanding the exigencies of everyday politics, should understand that if we repeal section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 there will still be left in place all the activities of the Race Relations Commission.
I invite those who have a spare moment to obtain a copy of the 1976 Act. It is apparent from part VII that the Commission for Racial Equality has a considerable role to play. Indeed, I must concede that in recent years it has seen which way the wind is blowing and has not been as assertive or aggressive in the pursuit of its powers as it was immediately after 1976. Therefore, it may be that the commission can be described as a tolerable nuisance. I assert that intolerable are the activities of local authorities in pursuit of section 71.
Many Labour Members regard the black community as a captive interest group—

Ms. Diane Abbott: Rubbish.

Mr. Budgen: Yes, there are those who take that approach. They believe that by speaking constantly in terms of idealism that is based upon a concept that is enshrined in the American constitution and in American legislation they will be able to continue to claim the adherence of the black community to the Labour party. I believe that they do the black community a great disservice. I believe also that they are deeply patronising to the many members of the black community who are making or who have made their way in our society without the benefit of any special privilege.
In Wolverhampton — —[Interruption.] — we have experience of what the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbot) and other Labour Members would describe as an active and progressive race relations industry. It campaigns most vigorously on behalf of the Labour party.

Mr. Marlow: I would just like to point out to my hon. Friend, in case he did not hear the seated interjections, that the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbot) and for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) both take the view that the job of a local council community relations organisation is to get rid of Members of Parliament that it does not like. This is an interesting development.

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the council for community relations in Wolverhampton has emerged publicly in a dramatic way on three occasions during the period that. I have had the honour to represent Wolverhampton, South-West. There have been two serious incidents of civil disturbance, and in each the officials of the council for community relations have, far from trying to calm things down, exacerbated the tension and made public statements to the effect that the activities of the police are not to be trusted.
As I have said, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North for drawing attention to the remarks of Labour Members about getting rid of Tory Members.

Ms. Abbott: Racist Members, not Tory Members.

Mr. Budgen: Racist, yes—exactly.
During the previous Parliament, I was a supporter of the Government's proposals to restrict immigration. During the general election, the council for community relations issued a pamphlet, which was financed by the ratepayer, to the effect that the Government's immigration policy was racist and that any candidate who supported those racist policies should not be supported. That is a reasonable point of view for the Labour party to put forward. As it happened, the Labour party had become so much associated with the activities of the council—that had done it a considerable amount of harm with a large section of the white community — that it tried to dissociate itself from the council's activities.
That did not stop the council for community relations. I say to those of my hon. Friends who are prepared, to stomach a bit of nonsense, but not all of it, that if we want to have a race relations industry it is probable that the Commission for Racial Equality is rather more impartial and capable of understanding in a sensitive way the case for obtrusive legislation, as I would describe it, than the various organisations of local government.
I hope that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the Government's new clause, which I consider to be dangerous. Everyone knows that there is a fundamental battle within the Government over contract compliance. I had forgotten that when I had a recent interview with my right hon. and learned Friend the Government Chief Whip, but it was said in Committee that, when he had ministerial responsibilities for immigration, he appeared on television and said that he was in favour of contract compliance.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I referred to that in Committee.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman is right. Perhaps it was his words that I read in the report of the consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Home Office is in favour of contract compliance and it may be that the Department of Employment is. It may also be that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has attempted to limit the effects of section 71(b) as much as possible. I dare say that he believes that the new clause, especially subsection (5), will limit the effects of section 71.
The issues that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the right to define can be changed by him without them being brought before the House. Even a Minister of this Government who took a different view of contract compliance could make considerable changes, and a Minister of a different party and Government could change them substantially. I say to my hon. Friends, who may be confused by the welter of advice that is an inevitable consequence of the views that have rocked our party over the past 20 years, that if they vote against the new clauses that are before us, we can do that which we desire, which is to repeal a bit of the nonsense with which we are now confronted.
I say to those who are men of principle but of not too much—men of principle who want to demonstrate their soundness by being prepared to accept a bit of nonsense — that we are not attacking all the race relations nonsense — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?") My hon. Friends ask, "Why not?" I merely suggest that we can take a useful bite at it by getting rid of section 71.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I do not propose to mention race relations, nor do I intend to speak half as long as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) because there are many hon. Members present, all of whom wish to contribute to the debate.
On the problem of disability, I want the Government to go further than new clause 5 and to accept new clause 6 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Disabled people face serious discrimination. Figures have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend but the actual figures are even worse than the official figures. Many disabled people simply give up and cease looking for jobs because of prejudice and discrimination. The number of people who face prejudice from employers is far greater than is commonly supposed. That is one major reason why we should have contract compliance.
8 pm
It is not just the figures that show the extent of discrimination but the personal experience of disabled people. I have received letters from people who have applied for jobs. It is a very disheartening experience. Some people have told me that they have made over 100 written applications for a job. Because they have been honest and mentioned that they have a disability, they either get no reply or they get a reply simply saying, "thank you". When disabled people change tack and decide not to mention their disability when they apply for jobs, if they get an interview, the moment the employer sees that they have a disability they are rejected.
Disabled people are in a no-win position. They cannot win if they are honest when they apply for jobs and they cannot win if they do not mention the disability, because at interview they are seen to be disabled. It is the outright prejudice against the disabled which is unforgiveable. Not all employers, but far too many, refuse to consider applications for jobs by disabled people. That is why we need contract compliance.
Why do employers take such a view about the disabled? The main reason is ignorance. They are ignorant of the abilities of many disabled people. They do not appreciate that if the disabled are put in the right jobs they can do just as good a job as a non-disabled person. Even if they are put in jobs to which they are not suited, the fact that they are disabled means they are anxious to please and they work harder and more assiduously than many people who are not disabled. Therefore, disabled people are a good bargain for employers if only the employers realised it.
It is not just ignorance but downright prejudice that prevents disabled people from getting jobs. Some employers simply do not want to know. They are not interested and they do not want to cope with the problems of accommodating disabled people, but that is covered by legislation. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 was passed specifically to help the registered disabled. That is the most neglected Act on the statute book. It is disregarded more than any other Act of Parliament. The Government help with its evasion and connive in its neglect. They connive in law-breaking by refusing to prosecute employers who break the law. Employers do not break the law by not fulfilling the quota of 3 per cent. That is just neglect. They break the law if they have not got a permit from the Department of Employment for not

fulfilling the quota and then take on a fit person. Thousands of employers are breaking the law today by doing that.
If we park our cars on a double yellow line or if we have a few drinks and drive our cars we are rightly prosecuted for breaking the law. I am in favour of that. But when employers break the law by flouting the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act they are not prosecuted. That is disgraceful.
What can we do? What weapons are there in the pitifully inadequate armoury of the disabled? The best weapon is contract compliance. The fit for work scheme is helpful and the persuasion which the Government try is splendid, but neither of those is adequate. We need contract compliance. That is a vital weapon in the armoury of the disabled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland mentioned Lambeth. That local authority has fulfilled its employment quota of 3 per cent. disabled. I went to Lambeth for the celebration. That is a marvellous achievement. Lambeth is the only local authority which has 3 per cent. disabled people on its books. It has done that by contract compliance.
If the Government are not prepared to accept new clause 6 the disabled will suffer even more discrimination and loss of jobs. New clause 5 will be helpful but it does not do enough. We must have new clause 6. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again, accept new clause 6 and give a better chance and more opportunities to the disabled to get the jobs that they badly need.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I welcome the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe that it will be welcomed by a number of groups. As has been indicated on both sides of the House, it will be welcomed by the Commission for Racial Equality not just because it is a quango that has specialised in this sphere but because it understands the problems and the work done by local authorities. The new clause will be widely welcomed by many black and Asian people who also understand the work done by local authorities. It will be welcomed by many supporters of the Conservative party and by many Conservative councillors who do much work to ensure that local authorities make a contribution.
We are not talking just about contract compliance, although that is the major thrust of the debate. The promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups is important in many towns and cities. Conservative as well as Labour councillors recognise that need and work hard towards that end.

Mr. Marlow: Can my hon. Friend explain to the House how it is that local authorities intervening in the internal affairs of companies under contract to them will help to bring about racial harmony?

Mr. Hughes: If it was not that my hon. Friend asked that question I would say that I had never heard such a silly suggestion. As it is, I will not say that. [Interruption.]

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend has made the joke; he should now answer the question.

Mr. Hughes: I am happy to answer the other points that are made from a sedentary position. If hon. Members are seriously suggesting that in a mixed racial community or indeed in an area where there are a majority of Asian


people—[Interruption.] the racial mix was not reflected in the work force in the area, and that that would not have some impact on good race relations, I would consider that hon. Members had not understood what we are debating today.
'The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), said that there was logic in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's action. However, he went on to attempt to extend that logic to sex discrimination and discrimination against disabled people. The logic was described exactly by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government in the Standing Committee. There is a legal framework for what is suggested within new clause 5. By accepting new clause 5, we are protecting the status quo. Indeed, we are improving it with regard to the powers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take.
I agree with much of what was said by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). We need to consider the problems of disabled people. We must take a much wider look at the severe problems of people who are intelligent and who can make a vital contribution to society, but who are denied that opportunity simply because they are disabled.
It is right for Opposition Members to claim that Lambeth has a good record in connection with the disabled. The council may not be able to run a housing department, and it may be dreadful at everything else that it does, but I accept—as I have witnessed its work—that it has brought hope to many disabled people. The council should be commended on its work in that area. The Government should attempt to expand much more widely the experience of councils such as Lambeth. Although this may not come under the remit of the Local Government Bill, all employers should treat the disabled in that way and, if necessary, should be forced to do so.
I welcome new clause 5 because it matches the assurances given during the general election campaign, when we made it clear that we would honour our assurances. New clause 5 matches assurances that were given during the campaign. Indeed, it matches an assurance given by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in another place on 21 July 1987, when he said in response to a question:
I assure the noble Lord that there will be nothing in it"—
"it" being the Bill—
to prevent the operation of the Race Relations Act"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 1987; Vol. 448, c. 1338.]
I am delighted that that assurance will be kept. In addition, an assurance was given in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government and new clause 5 matches that assurance.
I said earlier that we are improving the present position. I believe that the powers that the Secretary of State will take are very wise. It is right that we should lay down precisely the framework that local authorities can use to carry out this important work. I welcome the assurance given from the Dispatch Box that the Commission for Racial Equality and the local authority associations will be consulted before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes forward with his views. Local authorities have a good record in this area, irrespective of party. Some have misused their powers, but that is no reason why we should throw everything away.
I listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) about his local community relations council. I do not disagree with anything that he said about the council. However, we are not talking about that. We are concerned with what local authorities can do, what they have clone and the importance of their being able to act in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to new clause 9. If new clause 9 was passed without consultation or public and open debate about the merits or demerits of the new clause, that would be dangerous.

Mr. Marlow: Surely there has been no public consultation about new clause 5.

Mr. Hughes: Removing the status quo by passing new clause 9 would be dangerous. In response to my hon. Friend's sedentary intervention, surely we are protecting the status quo. We do not need public consultation to protect the status quo. I thoroughly welcome the Government's action and I applaud them for their bravery in bringing forward new clause 5, which is most welcome.

Mr. Bernie Grant: If I had walked into the debate during the contribution from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) I would have thought that we were debating the Race Relations Act 1976, not the Local Government Bill. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's speech was a thorough disgrace. His was one of those speeches which tries to justify racism, and the House should thoroughly reject it. He referred to voting in 1976, but his contribution reminded me of 1876, when there were no black people within these shores. Perhaps he wants to return to that position. I made a pledge long ago that I would not debate with racists and I will not answer points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West or any of his hon. Friends on that issue.
8.15 pm
We are debating the Local Government Bill, which is aimed at centralising local government. Under the Bill the Secretary of State will take additional powers from local government. That is a very dangerous trend. The theme running through the Bill is that the Secretary of State sitting in Marsham street in his bullet-proof, bomb-proof, people-proof office is more aware of the needs of particular areas and how best to meet those needs than the locally elected councillors. That is the basis of the Bill.
It is built on the false premise that some Labour-controlled local authorities have stepped out of line and done a few naughty things and as a result the Government had to introduce the Bill to bring them back to the path of righteousness and reason. During the debate, we consistently asked the Minister and his colleagues for evidence of that abuse of local government powers, but we were not given chapter and verse for those so-called abuses. We must conclude that the abuses lie in the mind of the Secretary of State and his Ministers.
The Bill should really be called the "Local Government (Strangulation) Bill". It is aimed at strangling local government by giving powers to the Secretary of State which historically belong to local authorities.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Gentleman referred to the historical nature of the powers of local government. Does he agree with the argument that


I subscribe to, that all local government powers come from this place? They have not dropped as tablets of stone from heaven.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are debating specific amendments. This is not the time to make speeches which might be more appropriate on another occasion, such as on Second Reading.

Mr. Grant: It is necessary for us to set the debate within the context of the present situation. I thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were very lenient to allow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to stray so far from the subject under debate. However, I accept your point and I will bring my thoughts back to the Local Government Bill.
It will take a virtual army of civil servants to monitor the workings of the Bill. I want to consider contract compliance and the relevant clauses in the Bill.
I want to concentrate on the Bill's effect on black people and other ethnic minorities who are under enormous pressure, especially in inner-city areas. Since 1979, the Government have done nothing to alleviate the plight of the many hundreds of thousands from ethnic-minority communities. Black people are four times as likely to, be unemployed as their white counterparts, and those who are employed are in the most low-paid and menial jobs. They suffer the worst housing, education and health care, and they have the worst chances in life of any group in society.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grant: No. I will not give way.
All that is due to racism. What have the Government done—

Mr. Marlow: I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is part of Standing Orders that if anyone in this House disagrees with the hon. Gentleman he is by definition a racist. That is what the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying.

Mr. Grant: The Government have done nothing since their election in 1979 to eliminate racism and the need for the fight against it. That is despite warnings in the reports by Lord Scarman and Lord Gifford, the report "Faith in The City" by the Church of England and similar reports by the Roman Catholic Church and other bodies. In the absence of any Government initiative, local authorities have been forced to compensate for the lack of it by introducing measures to combat the racism that is inherent in our present society.
Local authorities have listened to the ethnic minority communities in their areas, and have realised that the only way out of the vicious circle of deprivation is to give those people fair access to employment. Over the past few years, they have painstakingly developed ways of providing access to jobs. Contract compliance measures and local labour clauses in particular have been a key instrument to achieve that end. Through contract compliance measures, local authorities have been able to monitor the performance of contractors and the number of people from ethnic minorities in their work forces. That policy has succeeded in increasing the employment prospects of a

substantial number of such people, not least because the authorities must themselves set an example by employing a multiracial work force.
Initially, the Bill proposed to divest local authorities of any power that they had to influence contractors' willingness to employ people from ethnic minorities. So outraged, however, were organisations such as the Greater London Association for Racial Equality, the Commission for Racial Equality and churches of all denominations that the Minister, in an embarrassing climbdown, had to amend the clause. As a result, we have new clause 5 before us.
I shall not be as generous as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in welcoming new clause 5, because, basically, it will give more power to the Secretary of State. The new clause will allow him to specify what questions an authority may ask of contractors, bearing in mind that the authority's own money is involved. Contractors are taken on by local authorities with local ratepayers' money, and they have an absolute right to ensure that that money is not used to prop up racism.
The clause allows the Secretary of State what evidence an authority may require of a contractor. It gives him powers to make other unspecified provisions, as he may think necessary or expedient. Given the performance of this Government, and particularly that of the Department of the Environment, on equal opportunities, I venture to suggest that we can expect those powers to be abused in ways that will inhibit, rather than facilitate, the advancement of black employment opportunities.
The clause is another example of the Secretary of State taking more and more powers to himself and away from local authorities. I remind the House of the bureaucracy that will have to be set up to monitor all the goings-on in local authorities. Perhaps that was what the Secretary of State meant when he talked of "thought police" before the last election.
Another matter of great concern to me is the Government's outlawing of local labour clauses. Through such clauses, local authorities have tried to ensure that those who pay rates benefit in employment terms from the way in which they are spent. Too often, especially in the inner cities, local authorities spend millions of pounds on capital projects, the benefit of which goes to people living outside the area. There is the obscene situation of contractors bringing workers from affluent areas in the morning into an inner-city area of deprivation, perhaps to set up buildings there, only for everyone to pack up at 5 o'clock and go home to their luxury houses in the suburbs. That is deplorable.
In areas such as mine in Tottenham, we take such matters very seriously, because we believe that local labour clauses should be used first and foremost to try to ensure that disadvantaged young people — particularly young black people—have an opportunity of employment. We have found that, when such people have the opportunity to build some of the places in which they will live and work, there is little or no vandalism. That applies to the Broadwater Farm estate, and to other areas in Tottenham.
The London borough of Haringey has commented on the problem. We learned that Birmingham city council had introduced and initiated the local labour issue by requiring some contractors to employ some 30 per cent. of their employees from their particular catchment area. We said that we would employ one in six of our labour force from


the catchment area, a figure that is slightly below the local unemployment figure. Since we have done that, we have had no problems with the contractors. Since July of this year, when the clause was introduced, 17 tenders have been returned, valued at some £14 million. Four contractors have asked for extra money for employing local labour. The total extra cost was about £8,000, or 0.06 per cent. of the total contract value to date.
On the Broadwater Farm estate, we took that a bit further, and carried out a skills audit. We therefore knew precisely what skills the residents had to offer the contractors. We told the contractors that they were required to take on people from the estate to between 30 and 50 per cent. of their work force. Our action was justified: as a result, some 150 young people have now gained employment on the estate, many employed by the local direct labour organisation. The result is that we have seen young people on the estate walking around with some expectation of work. There has been a tremendous response to the positive effort of the local authority to ensure that young people had an opportunity of work that they did riot have previously.
The Bill tries to outlaw that welcome development. In Committee, the Minister hid behind EEC regulations on this matter. If the Government were serious about employing local people—in inner cities in particular—and serious about tackling unemployment, particularly among young black people, should they not support the local labour clause and argue the toss with their partners in the European Parliament and the European courts? That would be the honourable course of action for the Government, but yet again an initiative taken by local authorities to alleviate deprivation in their areas is being smashed by the Government.
8.30 pm
One of the most pernicious aspects of the Bill is the clause that deals with local authorities' ability to refuse to buy South African goods and to refuse to give contracts to companies that have links with South Africa. The Bill talks about contract compliance and privatisation, but it is such a mish-mash that it is difficult to say what the worst clause is, but this one takes the biscuit.
For some years, some local authorities that are morally opposed to the regime in South Africa have said that they will not buy South African goods or have dealings with companies that live off the blood and sweat of black people in South Africa. That principled position was taken by some local authorities as long as 20 years ago. This reactionary Government are trying to stop local authorities from determining whether their ratepayers' money should be used to prop up apartheid in South Africa. It is a disgraceful clause in the Bill.
Local authorities spend millions of pounds every year on goods and services. Local authorities have a right to decide in which companies ratepayers' money should be invested, the origin of goods that they purchase and who should receive contracts from them. My borough, along with others, has been pleased to make clear its opposition to apartheid. Some years ago we passed a resolution, in line with those from other authorities, deploring the apartheid regime in South Africa, which kills and maims black people. We said that we should have nothing to do with it or its products. That policy has been supported by black people in South Africa and we receive regular bulletins from people who are struggling against apartheid

in South Africa urging us to take sanctions against South Africa. Yet when local authorities try to do so, the Government step in and stop them.
In my constituency, a large proportion of people come from the black and ethnic minority communities. It is alleged to be over 50 per cent., but we are unable to say accurately what the figure is. However, it is certainly over 40 per cent. of the population; and they find apartheid repugnant and deeply offensive. They think that they should try to do the best they can in their own way by asking the local authority not to buy goods from South Africa. They have every right to do so, and the local authority has every right to respect those views. They do not want the local authority to force their children to eat apples or grapes from South Africa. If the Bill is passed unamended, people who have a conscientious objection to eating South African goods will be forced to do so because, by ruling out so-called non-commercial considerations, apartheid would not be a matter that an authority could take into account.
I want the Secretary of State to say what his position is on this matter.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is hypocritical.

Mr. Grant: It is a hypocritical position. The Government say that they are opposed to apartheid, yet a clause in the Bill is directly aimed at assisting the racists in Pretoria. It brings Pretoria in from the cold internationally by forcing local authorities and others to trade with it. I want the Secretary of State to answer that point specifically when he winds up.
Section 71(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 says that local authorities have a duty to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. If local authorities with large black and ethnic minority communities are forced to buy from South Africa, good relations between people from those minority groups and the white community will be strained because people from those minority communities will rightly say that the Government are not taking on board their position or considerations in this important matter.
The Bill and this clause, dealing with equal opportunities, local labour and the non-rights of women, are very dangerous. I urge the House to vote for our amendment, which seeks to maintain a reasonable relationship between local authorities and central Government.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I welcome this excellent new clause, but has the Minister considered the effect on companies' employment policies of local authorities asking questions about race but not about disabled people? It is a section of the community that is cruelly disadvantaged and needs help in seeking the employment to which it is entitled and can so effectively carry out.
This new clause, in seeking to ask local authorities, with contract compliance in mind, to ask about the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, does not change any legislation, but gives proper recognition to the admittedly weak legal onus on companies to honour employment laws affecting disabled people. It is not too much to ask.
I appreciate that the laws covering disabled people—those covering equality for women also — are weaker with regard to contract compliance than the race relations


legislation. I believe most strongly, as do all Conservative Members, in as free a market as is compatible with fair treatment for all. Careful employment opportunities offered to the disabled enhance, not reduce, profitability.
My own experience in computers — the sunrise industry, the industry of the future — shows that employing the disabled in this key sector—Britain leads in many parts of the computer industry worldwide —helps profitability and companies immensely. I suggest that acceptance of a modest amendment would not damage the growing profitability of our society under this Government, but would underwrite the Conservative party's commitment to tolerance and fairness.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Government Front Bench listened to the point made quietly and reasonably by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). There is a fundamental inconsistency between proposing the new clause to give effect to the Race Relations Act 1976 and to ensure that within the context of racial equality there is a degree of contract compliance and not accepting it in other ways. It has been accepted in the United States—the best model—that in relation to correcting disadvantages to the black and ethnic communities the contract compliance tradition—now 40 years old—has been most advantageous. However, it is applied across the board in areas of disability and women's employment.
The new clause moved by the Secretary of State, honouring an undertaking given in Committee, is welcome. I and my colleagues will support the new clauses and amendments tabled by the Labour party and oppose the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and his colleagues. I can deal easily with the rather disingenuous speech made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about, as he called it, this little bit of nonsense. He ignores the fact that in the country where there has been a tradition of working through legislative intervention in the public and private sectors to correct disadvantage—the United States—it has been accepted as appropriate not only by politicians on both sides of the political divide in America — it has been accepted by eight consecutive Presidents—but by the vast majority of employers, unions and public bodies as being a series of employment initiatives which have clearly been of great benefit to substantial numbers of people.

Mr. Marlow: Before the hon. Gentleman elevates contract compliance and the benefits of it in the United States into the realms of mythology, would he care to take account of the fact that in the United States forces—a country that has contract compliance—there is a mass of racial problems? However, in the British forces, where we do not have contract compliance to the same extent, there is not a problem.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is often deaf, but he seems to be blind as well. His point is invalid in general. The issue of how many problems we have of a racial nature in the forces has nothing to do with contract compliance because it does not apply there. However, the reality is that in Britain there have been recent examples of discrimination in the armed forces. I believe that it was the Prince of Wales who pointed out that we do not have any

black guardsmen. It is clear that in the armed forces, and the police to a lesser extent—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) would listen to the argument, we might have a better debate rather than if he continues to speak when an answer is being given. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his speech, as he knows, in a moment. There has been a growing feeling among the black and ethnic minority communities in this country that to get into the armed forces and do well in them, particularly the more elite sections, is extremely difficult.
We are talking in this context about general employment. The hon. Member for Northampton, North will know that perfectly neutral non-political bodies in Britain have confirmed the success of a policy tried and tested in the United States. It is now backed by civil rights legislation dating back 10, 20 or 30 years, and it has been accepted by impartial experts in this country. The best example of acceptance—it was cited in Committee—is the Institute of Personnel Management. The institute wrote to hon. Members making it clear that it is vital that we continue with contract compliance. The paradox of the Government's position is that they have accepted that point. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made the very good point, which was made in Committee, that the Government see the logic of the argument for contract compliance. I did not hear the hon. Member for Copeland quote the two specific sentences that are the best evidence of the Government's view. In September 1986, the Government made the case for contract compliance in a consultative paper on equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. The report, endorsed by the Prime Minister as well as by the Secretary of State, said:
equality of opportunity in employment means more than simply avoiding discrimination. An active commitment to sound personnel policies is required rather than the passive compliance with anti-discrimination legislation.
8.45 pm
It is right for Opposition Members to be suspicious of the Secretary of State and some of his colleagues because of their traditional view on subjects such as this.
However, we have to act to answer the second point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because we are talking about work that is done on behalf of the community. The work is tendered out, but it is done through the agency of government. It may be local government but it is government all the same. The Government have a duty to all the people. They have a duty, particularly at local level, to respect, advantage and assist all the communities in an area, whether it be disabled people, women or ethnic minorities. They have even more responsibility in areas with a large ethnic community. There is a strong argument that if the policies are not pursued in areas with large ethnic minority communities, it positively contributes to bad race relations and bad community relations. The economic well-being, and even the commercial well-being, to use the Government's criterion—they say we must not have non-commercial considerations—is disadvantaged. For example, if in the area around the Elephant and Castle in my constituency youngsters who are Bangladeshi by background do not have the opportunity of employment in south London, the economic well-being of south London will be disadvantaged because fewer of the local, trained young work force will be employed. They may go somewhere else but that will not help south London. In Birmingham and other


cities with large ethnic communities the same will apply. The commercial considerations are just as important as the social and other considerations.
The Government have accepted contract compliance in the context of the Race Relations Act and in the context of Northern Ireland. In time I believe that they will have to accept it across the board in relation to disabled people and women. The sooner they do so with good grace, the better.
Although all inquiries that I have made on the subject have been treated courteously and properly, I believe that we in the House are not a good example. We do not employ as many disabled people or members of ethnic communities as we should. When I asked whether it was possible for us to employ a blind woman who had applied to me for a job here, I was told that it was unlikely that she could be employed. I give that simply as an example. We ought to look at our own practices. I hope that the result of this debate will be to ensure that the authorities in the House, which are self-regulating—we are those authorities — do not seek from others what we are unwilling to apply to ourselves.
We had a long debate in Committee, which has been referred to already, about the principles of European law. The Government are extremely reticent in arguing the case for local labour, which is the context in which European law becomes relevant. If they wanted to argue that case, they could do so, probably to good advantage. The Government have not shown us their advice. They may say that there is nothing unusual about that—which is true —but they have received advice from the Association of London Authorities and had counsel's opinion. Page 434 of "Erskine May" states:
The opinions of the law officers of the Crown"—
this would apply to opinions by counsel—
being confidential, are not usually laid before Parliament or cited in debate, and their production has frequently been refused; but if a Minister deems it expedient that such opinions should be made known for the information of the House, he is entitled to cite them".
I ask the Secretary of State specifically to cite what advice makes it contrary to European law that we have local labour clauses in the legislation.

Mr. Ridley: Has the hon. Gentleman received a letter which w as sent to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government? The hon. Gentleman is talking as though he has not.

Mr. Hughes: I have received the letter — it was generalised—and I understand the points. I have it here. The Minister for Local Government knows the issue very well. If the Government think that they are right, why do they not do as they are entitled and seek a declaratory judgment from the European Court? If the Government think that we are right, why do they not do the same? They cannot lose. They could include in the Bill a new clause saying, "Nothing in the Bill shall be in breach of European law." The Government need not do that, because they cannot legislate in breach of European law anyway. It is ludicrous to put in the Bill a measure that says we cannnot have local labour clauses because it is in breach of European law. If it is in breach, the Government cannot have such measures. The issue could be tested. We should not have this pussyfooting.
Page 2 of the letter of 10 December to the hon. Member for Copeland about the discussion in Brussels states:

There seemed a possibility that the Community as a whole might accept a scheme enabling suppliers in disadvantaged areas to obtain at least some part of the contract but it remains to be seen what the Commission will propose and how it will bear on works contracts.
Instead of the Government just accepting that something might happen, why do they not argue the case? In July this year, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he would like to be able to have local labour clauses. If he would like them, let us see a bit of effort to get them implemented. Let us not have half-cocked advice persuading the right hon. Gentleman that it is not worth the candle. Let us not suddenly realise that the policy for the inner cities will be averted at the first whiff of potential bureaucratic opposition. It is not a great commitment to the inner cities from the Secretary of State if the remote possibility that we cannot have local labour clauses is enough to deter him and his colleagues. If the Government are committed to the inner cities, let them test that commitment—if necessary, before the courts.
The sad truth is that this part of the Bill reveals two central Government attitudes. First, they do not respect the autonomy of local government. They wish their morality, their commercial standards, to be those of everyone else. Secondly, they wish to prevent others, who have been democratically elected, from being able to make moral decisions or decisions that are accepted in progressive societies as necessary to ensure basic equality, not to produce inequality.
We still have an extremely unequivocal society. Some people have a particular disadvantage. Some groups find life especially difficult. In the cities we are creating, as "Weekend World" put it yesterday, an increasingly large under class. The Government are meant to be committed to the inner cities. They cannot pretend that they are committed if, when the opportunity comes to do something about it, they go in the other direction.
The Secretary of State has made one small, faltering step in the right direction with the new clause. The Government will not do right by this country and by the disabled, ethnic minorities, women, and all of us, unless they embrace contract compliance wholeheartedly. I hope that the Government resoundingly reject the new clause of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, with its gross overtones and undertones of racism and little Englander mentality. I hope that the Government wholeheartedly embrace, sooner rather than later, the amendments proposed by the Opposition and by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West, because they make it clear that we have a duty to all our citizens to ensure that they have equal opportunities in work, employment and prosperity.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I support the general principle and thrust of what I understand the Government are doing in this part of the Bill, which is broadly to separate the two issues of commerce and politics and, where that is impossible, to regulate them. But I should appreciate some clarification from the Treasury Front Bench on some matters, especially since we are considering a Government new clause.
What is the evolution of the Government's thinking on section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976? It is familiar to those who have been in the House longer than me that, however good the parliamentary draftsmen or their instructors, from time to time sections are overlooked when Bills are formulated. I understand that, if that had


happened in this legislation, section 71, with its duty to avoid discrimination and to promote good race relations, would have continued untroubled and would have been in force. The Government do not seek to restrict any of those statutory responsibilities in this legislation.
But the Government took it on themselves in their original proposals to propose that the anti-discrimination part of the section should be enacted with certain restrictions. This would imply that the draftsmen had taken note of the section. If they had taken note of the first part of the section, why — this point arouses some suspicions among some of my hon. Friends—did they not take note of the second? As I understand it, they want it to go forward in a regulated form in the new clause.
I am concerned about the details as set out in subsection (5) and should like some comment on them. The new clause has not been considered in Committee—I did not have the benefit and privilege of serving on the Standing Committee — and there are certain points of doubt. First, we do not have the questions yet; we have not seen them. They are to go out to consultation with a large number of people. When they come back, will they be reported to the House in draft to provide us with the opportunity to comment on them before they are finalised?
Secondly, there is, in any case, a reference to the Secretary of State specifying a series of questions. I am not clear from the Bill whether he lays one egg, as it were, and that is the end of the matter or whether, in the light of experience, he or his successors—who may be of widely different political philosophies—may wish to amend or rescind the questions. Perhaps they can only add to them. Having set out in this direction, it is most important that we do not impose a set of onerous questions on private sector business men. Having decided what the questions are, it is most important that they be secure. There is always the danger that they will be torn up and changed in accordance with the whim of the moment.
I note that the Secretary of State has taken an order-making power in clause 19. There is no equivalent proposal under debate tonight; he could not take such powers in this case. That power would have been an appropriate vehicle for the questions that he wishes to specify. If I may dare to presume to say so, that would also have been a more normal parliamentary procedure.
9 pm
My third point goes somewhat wider than my first or second, relating to the efficacy and enforceability of the questions when they are in place. I say with respect to Opposition Members that race relations are highly sensitive. When one asks, "What are your non-working days in the week?", one is led into the question whether Jewish or Muslim employment is involved. Simple and apparently innocent questions can be construed in different ways.
Conservative Members worry that, even if the questions are specified in simple terms by the Secretary of State, they may be abused and perverted by certain local authorities — I hope that none will do this — to a completely different purpose. As I understand it, under clause 19 all that a local authority has to do is to give a chit to unsuccessful business men to say, "Sorry, chum,

this is why we turned you down," and that appears to be the end of the matter. I should like some comments on that.
To those of my hon. Friends who were hoping for a little support for new clause 9, let me say that the debate has been valuable. I do not share Opposition Members' perception of my hon. Friends. However, I shall not be supporting them. I take a fairly relaxed view of declaratory legislation such as section 71 of the Race Relations Act. That section should be promoting among local authorities the decency that we as citizens — and some of us as employers — apply to our own labour practices and personal lives. I do not want that section to be rescinded completely, which would be the effect of the new clause. It might have been different had my hon. Friends decided to table a new clause disapplying the Race Relations Act to these clauses of the Local Government Bill. They chose not to do that and I shall not follow them into the Lobby.
Having said that, it is right that I should voice my concern and ask the Government to answer my questions and ensure that the way in which they have restricted the application of section 71 of the Race Relations Act and imposed questions on local authorities works in a way that will not lead to abuse or to the negative race relations that such practices have often led to in the past.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The country should note the fact that, although the Bill is already extremely objectionable in many respects, it does not go far enough for some Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) most clearly expressed that dissatisfaction and his proposal is so Right-wing that most people in Britain would find it completely abhorrent. Any comment made in my area about Glasgow district council or Strathclyde regional council and their efforts to improve the lot of ethnic minorities is likely to be a criticism that they are not doing enough; they are not criticised for going too far.
It is interesting that, when the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) was attempting to appeal to the Government's better nature on disabled people, she felt that she had to appeal to their pockets by pointing to the enhanced profitability arising from the employment of disabled people. What a comment it is on the Government's attitude that they could not take such action out of kindness or humanity.
I move quickly to sex discrimination, which has not had much of an airing yet. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the Equal Opportunities Commission's comments on the Bill and the fact that it would like the Sex Discrimination Act to come into line with a section of the Race Relations Act. The Minister has still not replied on the action that he intends to take on the Equal Opportunities Commission's representations. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we are still waiting for an answer. The Minister shows no signs of replying now, but perhaps he will later on.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said that he would like contract compliance throughout industry. Hon. Members may recall his making that comment. He said that he felt that it was right to object to it in local government, because local government was taking on itself powers that it did not rightfully have. Unlike most of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman suggested that he would like to see contract


compliance in industry. I asked whether he intended to present a Bill to that effect, because I would gladly support it. That was four weeks ago, but I still live in hope.
The possibility of the Government doing anything about equal rights for women cannot be taken seriously in view of their record. Since 1979, they have done nothing to advance women's rights—and have, indeed, retarded them in many serious respects. They have abolished maternity grants and have made the conditions for maternity leave harsher. They have attacked the wages councils, which protected low-paid women. Part-time women workers still have worse pay and conditions than full-time workers.
The chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission—Lady Platt, who is a Conservative—has said:
It would be an extremely worrying development if the Bill were to go ahead, given the very serious problem of discrimination against women that still needs to be tackled".
Even the Government's own supporters are complaining, but the Government pay no attention whatever. The EOC, as an agent of the Government, has encouraged local authorities to develop equal opportunities policies and has successfully advised local authorities for several years, but the Government seem to dismiss the EOC's objections to the Bill out of hand.
Some Conservative Members seem puzzled about why local authorities should need to take these matters on board. I will give the House some figures. In general, women earn only 74 per cent. of male earnings, despite the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act, which were supposed to ensure equal treatment. For manual work, the figure is 71 per cent. and for non-manual work 62 per cent. Sadly, the position is even worse in Scotland. In 1986, female average weekly earnings in Scotland were 64 per cent. of male average earnings. That represents a very small increase since 1976, the year after the Act was passed. Moreover, 32—7 per cent. of Scottish women's average gross weekly earnings are less than £100, whereas for men the figure is 6—7 per cent. More than 12 per cent. of working women in Scotland gross under £75 per week, so the situation is well documented—women are paid far less than men.
It is common knowledge that men predominate in the higher paid and more highly skilled jobs. The most obvious example is the House of Commons, where only 41 out of 650 Members —just over 6 per cent. of the total —are women.
Far from recognising the importance of advancing women to positions of higher pay and greater authority, the Government are doing their best to reverse the efforts of those who are trying to deal with the problem. I am not surprised at the Government's complacency. It suits them very well that women are not competing successfully with men. There is clear evidence that women predominate in jobs with lower pay and lower status, particularly cleaning jobs, shop work and assembly and machinist work. They are even excluded from manual clerk jobs and they are rare indeed in the higher reaches of management, whether in industry and commerce or on the Conservative Benches. As for the Prime Minister, she has not done much for the advancement of women.
The discrimination that was attacked in the Sex Discrimination Act still continues, but the Government do not wish to enforce that Act vigorously. For example, application forms still contain questions about women's marital status, ages of dependants and child care

arrangements. I wonder what male applicants would think if they were asked how many children they had and who would look after them — questions which some people still regard as acceptable for women candidates. At company interviews people are still asked questions of that sort and the Government have done nothing about that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said, the Government have accepted the logic of contract compliance in Northern Ireland over the matter of religious discrimination. I asked the Secretary of State why the Government accepted it in Northern Ireland and not in mainland Britain. He answered that there were "significant differences" between this country and there. It seems that women will have to riot in the streets in order to get the equality that we seek.
All along we have seen incredible bossiness and authoritarianism from the Government. They have been trying to tell local authorities how to conduct their affairs and seem totally unconcerned about the fact that local authorities are elected by the local electorate on the basis of what the electorate wants. If the electorate does not like the local authority's policies on ethnic minorities, disabled people or women, it can exercise its vote to say so. I am pleased to come from an area where there are no Tory Members of Parliament and where only five out of 66 district councils are Tory-controlled. The views that the Tories express are certainly not popular in some parts of the country. Indeed, their views are neither understood nor known throughout the country—especially by the 52 per cent. of the population who are women.

Mr. Marlow: I am sure that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) has heard the expression about the pot calling the kettle black. May I through you put it to him, Mr. Speaker, that if he continues to accuse everybody who disagrees with his views of being racist, people will start to look upon him as being a black racist?
I have seen my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment embarrassed before. I have seen all my right hon. Friends embarrassed before — there is nothing particularly special about that — but my right hon. Friend has been embarrassed before because he had a hard time in debate. When he had a hard time in debate he actually believed in what he was putting forward. Today my right hon. Friend is not only having a hard time in debate, but it is very hard to believe that he believes in the measures that he is putting before the House. I am fully committed to my right hon. Friend's intentions; there is no problem on that score at all. He will have heard from the Opposition Front Bench that what he has been putting to the House this evening is Socialist policy, and he has also had the blessing of the Liberal party. No wonder he is embarrassed.
The Bill when it first started was three paces forward and one pace backwards. The new clause that we are debating makes it three paces forward and two paces backwards. Obviously, this is a contentious issue. It is on a Monday. Nobody really arrives until Monday afternoon and nobody knows what the business is until Monday afternoon. It started at 7 o'clock in the evening when the press had disappeared, so we debate what we want here and the wider world will have no knowledge of what we are doing. As my right hon. Friend knows, the vast majority of Members of his own party disapprove of what he is doing and are all elsewhere instead of being here for the debate.
The history of immigration and race relations in this country has been democratically deeply disturbing. I make no comment on the immigrant community as a whole which is as industrious or as idle, as virtuous or as evil, as decent or as indecent as the population at large—there is no difference whatever. The country never willed large-scale immigration. It always opposed large-scale immigration and Governments have always been unwilling and powerless to staunch the flow. It has always been too little and too late. As with immigration policy so with policy on race relations.
The absurd, unloved Race Relations Act 1976, the nonsense that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), was introduced, put upon this country, by a Labour Government. I am proud to say that the Conservative party abstained and my right hon. Friend to his lasting credit, until this evening, actually voted against the measure. If it did not exist, I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would introduce it. Should it exist? If we were right to oppose it then, surely we are right today to increase its influence over the original Bill. Alack and alas, our heroic Government have been got at by the moral blackmail of the race relations industry, through its absurd and life-supporting myth that those who dare to oppose its own institutional vested interests are racists. When anybody says anything sensible on this subject, he is accused of being racist. I am sorry that it has had its impact on my right hon. Friend. I know that he is a brave man.
9.15 pm
I imagine that we are all in favour of social harmony. We are all in favour of good race relations. Why does the giggling, cackling crowd on the Benches opposite find it impossible to recognise that there are many means of approaching the same end? Perhaps there is an alternative that would be far more effective than the muddled theories currently being applied. My right hon. Friend is an imaginative man. I wish that he would use his imagination and, with one leap, break free from the mental dictatorship of this self-regarding and damaging lobby. He would get immense support in the country, on earth and probably in Heaven too.
The Government's intention in introducing this Bill was to prevent corporatist, mischievous local authorities from abusing their position by introducing political constraints into what should be purely value-for-money contracts. I believe that the Government share my view that local authorities are there to decide democratically the level of services to be provided, how the money will be raised to pay for those services and how to regulate the provision of those services. Local government has no role in bringing about a new political millennium. If that is to be decided, it is to be decided here, at the national level. The intention of the Bill was consistent with that principle, albeit with a small concession.
Then there were those who were waiting in the wings to pounce on my right hon. Friend. It was not good enough. There were squeals of outrage. Grubby hands have since been grappling with the entrails of Government to bring about changes in the Bill. Once again, I am afraid that the foul deed has been done and that the lobby has overruled democracy. The vested interests have decided

and Parliament has been brought into the debate at far too late a stage to influence it. The Government have been rolled over.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was telling us about the Commission for Racial Equality. I do not share his view. The commission is very germane to this debate as it is the progenitor of the new clause which my right hon. Friend has put before the House. It is an aggressive, assertive conglomeration of lobbies which suit the purpose of selected minorities within selective minorities. By being antipathetic to the majority of the population, it harms race relations rather than heals. Five eighths of the staff are coloured. In all probability, a large proportion of that staff are political activists, unrepresentative of the communities from which they purport to come. One wonders to what extent the credibility of some of the people who work in the race relations industry is dependent on the growth of racial harassment, rather than on racial harmony. Their attitude is deeply patronising and insulting to ethnic minorities and provocative to the majority.
If you are looking for evidence, Mr. Speaker, I have here the annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality. It spends at least £10 million a year. How does it spend it? It spends £29,000, for example, on something called Black Rights UK. There would be a problem if there were an organisation called White Rights UK that was funded by Government. It spends £32,000 on a federation of black housing organisations. I suppose apartheid is wrong unless it is practised by blacks. It spends £8,000 a year on something called an anti-racism worker, who works for Third World First. Is that how we should spend public money? It spends £26,000 a year on the West Indian standing conference. If there is, and should be, a West Indian standing conference, would it not be more dignified and more effective if it raised the money on its own? Is that how public money should be spent? How many broken babies could our hospitals operate on for £10 million? That sort of attitude encourages the supplicate and mendicant postures from self-styled leaders of ethnic minorities, some of whom are on the Opposition Benches.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is right that a Conservative Government should share that patronising and damaging approach. Sadly, pressures have been applied to see that, at this stage, they do. The Government have yielded and have brought forward a new clause about which, in his embarrassment, my right hon. Friend did not tell the House a great deal. I shall point to a few facts within it. New clause 5 states:
Except to the extent permitted by subsection (2) below, section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 … shall not require or authorise a local authority to exercise any function … by reference to a non-commercial matter.
We now come on to exceptions. With the exceptions, the authorities are able to ask approved questions seeking information or undertakings relating to work force matters and consider the responses to them. They will be able to ask companies about what is happening to the labour force and they will be able to consider them when they have got the reply back from the company. Clause 5(2)(b) states:
including in a draft contract or draft tender for a contract terms or provisions relating to workforce matters and considering the responses to them".
So they will be able to tell companies how to organise and manage their own work forces. All this, you will be pleased to hear, Mr. Speaker, has to be put down in


writing. If authorities do not like what they get from applicant companies — the companies that want to contract with them — they will be able to write for supporting evidence. How many letters will go backwards and forwards? How long will it take a local authority to answer a letter? What questions will it ask? What will it do with the information that it gets in the answers? If it does not like the answers, what will it be able to do? What recourse will industrialists—the commercial companies — have in a court of law against arbitrary exclusion after the exchange of letters?
Of course, there is one other important point, and that is that, for the purpose of this section, the questions will be set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has kindly told the House that, before he puts his questions forward, he will have discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality and local authorities. How aware is the House that, in September of this year, the Commission for Racial Equality introduced a code of practice — principles of practice—for contract compliance? When my right hon. Friend goes along to speak to the Commission for Racial Equality, this is what the Commission for Racial Equality will show my right hon. Friend. What is he going to do with it? He has taken orders from the Commission for Racial Equality with regard to bringing the new clause forward. Is he going to take orders or will he be disagreeable when he sees the contract of compliance code of practice?
While we pay court to the Commission for Racial Equality, the likelihood is that the Government will feel morally bound to accept, at least in part, what the Commission for Racial Equality requires them to do. What will the Commission for Racial Equality require the Government to do? Among the general principles that have been enumerated by the Commission for Racial Equality, one of them—this is referring to the letter that comes back from the contractor—states:
Where such information in the opinion of the purchaser"—
that is, the local authority—
shows an absence of reasonably necessary steps to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to provide equal employment opportunities, the contractor or potential contractor should be informed and given an opportunity to make whatever changes are agreed to be appropriate within a specified reasonable period of time.
What if the contractors do not respond in the way in which the local authorities want? If we look at the local authorities that are commanded by the Labour party —Camden, Bermondsey, Liverpool and the rabble in the country outside — what will they do with that information? It will be manna from heaven for them. It is a messy and provocative business. It will be a paradise for the barrack-room lawyer, the mischief-maker, the prevaricator and the litigant. The Government intend to prevent discrimination — there is no argument among Conservative Members about that. If, however, the Government believe that the best way of dealing with discrimination is by legislation, there may be some argument on the Government side of the House.
However, section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976 says:
4. — (1) It is unlawful for a person, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against another—


(a) in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment; or
(b) in the terms on which he offers him that employment; or
(c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer him that employment.

(2) It is unlawful for a person, in the case of a person employed by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against that employee—

(a) in the terms of employment which he affords him; or
(b) in the way he affords him access to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities or services, or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or
(c) by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment."

It is all there. That is law for contract compliance. That is what will ensure that there is no racial discrimination in employment. There is no need for local government to be breathing and heaving over independent commercial companies looking into their employment situation to see how they run their systems. The law is there. We do not need sneaks and narks from Left-wing Labour party local government districts and counties rubbing their noses against private employers who are trying to do decent work and have better things to do than to have people snooping over their shoulders all the time. Why are we opening this Pandora's Box when the Minister has said that:
Local authorities should not be in the business of setting themselves up as extra-statutory enforcement agencies on matters that are already the subject of existing statute and which already have where appropriate, their own enforcement processes."?
He said later on 17 November,
However, we aim to prevent authorities from asking endless questions and from seeking the most detailed information about the extent to which contractors obey the law." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 November 1987; c. 793–4.]
New clause 5 was put before the House to do just that. I believe what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said on 17 November, and I am sure that he will be consistent. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have seen the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend. Bearing that in mind, I beseech my hon. Friend, if he wants to go the way he said on 17 November, to join me and my hon. Friends in the Lobby later this evening.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: While listening to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I certainly sorrow for England in disbelief that such a speech could be made in the House. Such prejudice is best returned whence it comes and the lid firmly slammed shut on it. I am glad that the Minister is on the Front Bench and not his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
New clause 5 is welcome. It is an admission that the Government have made a mistake in drafting their legislation too tightly. By opening the gate just a little in regard to local authorities positively promoting social goals such as better racial harmony and equality of opportunity among all sections of the community and by allowing local authorities to exert influence in positively promoting good industrial practices and industrial relations, the Government have moved towards understanding the debt we all owe to local authorities throughout the country for promoting those desirable


goals for many years. Local authorities — which are usually attacked by the Government — have a good record of promoting policies and practices that benefit society in general. I have seen this in practice in Scotland. New clause 5 shows that the Government are beginning to recognise that fact slightly. It is also a tacit recognition that the Bill goes too far in giving the Government control over democratically elected local authorities.
Contract compliance is a necessary and desirable local safeguard. Why should councillors not set conditions under which legally made contracts should work? They pay money on behalf of local people and they must retain the right to state the terms on which contracts are made. Local authorities should have such freedom of action. If local people do not like what councils do, the matter should not be left to the central Government. Rather, local electors should decide whether they like how their councillors have behaved and vote accordingly. The Government are inflicting their prejudices on local government.
9.30 pm
New clause 5 addresses an English problem. It has little to do with Scotland. It seems that, time and again, English local government sins — if that is what they be — are being visited on Scottish local authorities in the Government's desire to curb what they regard as excess. Scotland should not be tagged on to what is basically an English Bill. The more I study the Bill, the more I am confirmed in my belief that it is nonsense for Scotland. It bears no relation to the workings of Scottish local government and Scottish geography or demography. The Bill is irrelevant to my country.
The Government expect certain standards of conduct from local authorities. Why should local authorities be unable to expect certain standards of conduct from those whom they employ to carry out contracts? —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask both sides of the House to listen rather than conduct private conversations.

Mr. Welsh: He who employs the piper is not being allowed to call the tune. The Government have recognised that in new clause 5.
Will the Minister draw in local authority-produced questions, or does he have it in mind to produce standard questions for distribution to local authorities? Do the Government have any questions in mind now? Do any questionnaires or forms exist and, if so, when will local authorities see them? What time scale does the Minister have in mind to introduce the standard questions? It would be useful if local authorities knew what will hit them.
What consultations will take place with local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities when and if the questions are drawn up? The problem with new clause 5(5) is that it does not go far enough to relieve the Government's stranglehold over local authority decision-making. It restores strict Government control and almost wipes out what is conceded in subsections (1) and (2). Local authorities have a right to express their views and to insist on higher standards of conduct among contractors. New clause 5 recognises that, but immediately imposes another straitjacket. The Government have admitted their mistake but have done little to correct it.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: It is probably common knowledge that I was the first Conservative candidate for 100 years to be elected to represent Huddersfield, West. I now represent another constituency. When I was campaigning in Huddersfield it became clear to me—it seemed that this had not been apparent in the past, which is probably why the Tories had not won elections in Huddersfield, West — that I had to deliver the coloured vote to the Conservative party. That vote amounted to 12 per cent. of the local population. I did not get the coloured vote by pandering to the coloureds—[Interruption.] I went to the Sikh temples and I went—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member must frame his own speech, and we all use different terms. Perhaps the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) will take care.

Mr. Dickens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying, before I was interrupted, that I went to Sikh temples, mosques and Caribbean groups. I visited them all. I said to them all—Opposition Members might be astounded to hear this—"Many of you, and certainly many of your parents, would not be here if it had been left to me." As a result, they trusted me. They knew that I was truthful. Opposition Members cannot take this —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We often hear things said in the Chamber with which we do not agree.

Mr. Dickens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is silly to pander to minority groups. Indeed, to do so makes relationships worse. There was a case, for example, of a fat girl who was refused employment by a bank. That was held to be discrimination. That approach would be of trouble to me, of course. Whenever a minority group is pandered to, relationships will be inflamed.
I have not yet decided which way to vote on the new clause. I want to hear the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If local government employs contractors with ratepayers' and taxpayers' money, I want them to be employed because they will do a good job at a competitive price. I do not want a contractor to be selected because he employs a number of people from certain groups. The only criterion is whether a worker is up to the job.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) talks a great deal about the role of women. The Conservative party produced the first woman Prime Minister in Britain's history, so why should we be lectured by Opposition Members about putting ladies first? The Conservative party has put women first and foremost.
I shall listen intently to the reply of my right hon. Friend. If he can give an assurance that the selection of contractors will be sensible and fair and not based on criteria that have been adopted by the Kremlin republic of Sheffield and elsewhere, I shall be content.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I do not intend to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). I shall refer, however, to the speeches of the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), which highlighted the extreme Right-wing position of many within the Conservative party. Whatever


criticism we may make of the Government, I believe that even they are embarrassed and ashamed by some of the comments that were made by those two hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North said that he hoped to have the opportunity to vote for new clause 9, in his name and the names of some of his hon. Friends. I hope that they will not be able to do that because, as Madam Deputy Speaker indicated at the beginning of the debate, that will not be possible if new clause 6 is carried. Should new clause 6 fall, I should like to see how many Conservative Members are prepared to go through the Lobby in support of the appalling new clause 9.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) felt that he could not welcome Government new clause 5. I disagree. Having been in the House for four or five years, 1 recognise that to get any concession from the Government is rare. Therefore, the fact that they are prepared to make some amendment to the Bill in response to the debate in Committee is at least welcome. I welcome that small step in the right direction, but obviously we wish to go further.
If I do not speak on racial equality, the need for women's equality or the position of the disabled —matters that have been referred to in the debate—it does not mean that I think they are not important. They are extremely important, but I want to deal briefly with one or two other points.
The first part of new clause 6 refers to the terms and conditions of employment offered by contractors to their workers, and it goes on to the training of the work force. Training is important. When a local authority is putting out contracts to the private sector as a result of this legislation it should be able to ensure that adequate training is provided. If in 1987 we make legislation which allows workers to be offered worse conditions, worse pay, worse holiday pay and worse sick pay, we are moving in the wrong direction. We need the provisions in new clause 6.
In replying to a debate in Committee, the Minister of State indicated that it would be a restrictive practice for local authorities to pay double time to people to work on a Sunday. Anyone who works on a Sunday, or other unsocial hours, is entitled to additional pay. Because of the unemployment that the Government have created, it will he possible, as the Minister said in Committee, to get someone in the private sector who is desperate for work to do the work at a low rate of pay. People who have won contracts in places such as Merton and Wandsworth pay appalling low rates. The same applies to the Health Service. The Government have said that they want to ensure fair competition. We can do that only if the Bill ensures that employees in the private sector enjoy an overall employment package at least equal to that of employees within local government.
Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to the need to employ local labour in the most deprived sections of our cities and towns. Despite the Secretary of State's comments on this matter on Second Reading and on a number of other occasions, it is surprising that he has found it impossible to include something in the Bill to ensure that there is a safeguard so that we can at least give a fair opportunity to local people for work that is put out to tender. At the end of' the day, those people pay the rates and the bills. They should be able to tackle the problem of urban deprivation in some of our most difficult areas by providing for local employment opportunities.
There are many other important items within new clause 6, but I shall keep my remarks to the absolute minimum. I hope that Conservative Members will be prepared to recognise the wisdom of new clause 6. If not, I hope that they will accept the Government's new clause 5 and reject new clause 9.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I urge the House to vote for new clause 6 and new clause 7 standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. Although new clause 5 takes a step forward, it does not go far enough. However, I reluctantly urge hon. Members to vote for Government new clause 5 if there is a Division.
New clause 5 was tabled by the Government on Report as a result of a commitment given in Committee by the Minister and the Secretary of State to ensure that the legislation does not contravene section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. We have heard major attacks on the Government's new clause 5. Indeed, we have heard attacks from Conservative Members on the Race Relations Act 1976. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that the Race Relations Act 1976 granted special rights to a minority. When asked what those special rights were, he said, the protection of the Race Relations Act. The hon. Gentleman was attacking the protection under law not to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin or one's racial or ethnic origin.
I am proud to state that the Labour party has a proud record on human rights in supporting successive Race Relations Acts. We were accused of having that record, and we plead guilty to that. We support the Government's intention to ensure that local authorities do not contravene section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, because we want to ensure that people are not discriminated against.
We are concerned to some extent about the details of new clause 5. We see no real reason why the Secretary of State should take all the powers under the clause, as he has under other clauses, especially without any reference back to Parliament. The Secretary of State is given the powers to prescribe the questions which a council may ask of its suppliers and the evidence which the council may consider when examining the answers that it receives if he so chooses by allowing only the wrong or irrelevant questions to be asked. We shall carefully watch the consultation process promised by the Secretary of State and see what arises to ensure that the intentions behind new clause 5 are not subverted as a result of how the Secretary of State uses his powers.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). We do not see why all the contract compliance activity should be carried out in writing. What is wrong with telephone calls or meetings? What is wrong with a discussion? We believe that local government will be saddled with a lot of bureaucracy — the Minister flourished a large and weighty document from Sheffield and criticised its bureacuracy— by limiting the process to being conducted in writing, and local contractors will also suffer as a result of that bureacuracy.
It has been asked what right local authorities have to interfere in the internal running of companies. The question strikes at the key issue that we are debating. We are talking not merely about race discrimination, but about the whole issue of contract compliance arid tendering. It seems to be suggested that a local authority


making certain specifications when letting a contract to a private company is somehow interfering with its internal running. What about the rights of the local authority? What about my rights as an individual citizen? I can determine what contractor, in what circumstances, comes to repair my house or to lay carpets. Local government should have that freedom as well.
If the outlawing of contract compliance is coupled with the competitive tendering clauses in the Bill, direct labour departments will be put at a disadvantage, and one private company will be at a disadvantage compared with another Let me give an example. If a direct labour department or a private company employs the right percentage of disabled workers, it will, to an extent, be at a disadvantage compared with a company that employs no disabled people and is not prepared to support those members of our community.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Roberts: I shall not give way—certainly not to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who has only just come into the Chamber, and has said that he has not decided how to vote because he wants to listen to the debate.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly withdraw what he said about the disabled? Disabled people are just as good workers as anyone else. How dare he say that they will put their companies at a disadvantage?

Mr. Roberts: As a senior social worker and a principal officer in a social services department before I came to the House, I am well aware of the capacities of disabled people. I am also aware that certain people with certain disabilities are employed, because of their disabilities, on a different basis from the able-bodied. Many private companies will not employ such people, and those who do employ them should not be discriminated against. Neither should local authority direct labour departments.
The same applies to training. Training is very important to the future of British industry, and the future of our young people. Why should not a local authority be able to say, "If you do not employ a reasonable number of apprentices—if there are no training opportunities—we should prefer to employ the company that trains youngsters, and provides those opportunities"? Why should local government not have those rights, for the sake of our young people and for the sake of the future?
We have written a provision about countries of origin into new clause 7. Conservative Members say that their only interest is in whether the companies can do the job for the best possible price: it is purely a matter of money. My hon. Friends and I made it clear in Committee that we accept that, if local authorities, the Government or anyone else will not deal with companies that trade in South Africa, there is a price to be paid, and we are prepared to pay that price as a matter of principle. We are opposed to the apartheid regime, and we think that the taxpayers and the electors of local government should have the right to elect local authorities that are also opposed to it. If they do that, local authorities have the right to such contract compliance provisions.
Local government is not isolated or non-accountable; it is far more accountable than any of the local companies

with whose internal workings Conservative Members claim we are trying to interfere. Local authorities should have the same rights as Conservative Members to specify what issues they consider important in terms of whom they employ to do work on their behalf and on behalf of their electors and ratepayers.
I do not believe that, every time a Conservative Member says something on immigration or race relations with which I disagree, he is necessarily racist. However, I should say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that those who claim that they are not racists but who are prepared to use racial prejudice and the fear of it in the community to get grubby, filthy votes are worse than any racists because they are also hypocritical. The speeches from and attitudes of some Conservative Members that we heard today were designed to get racist votes, even though they denied that they are racists. They played on prejudices, which is unworthy of any great political party and unworthy of the Conservative party, with its traditions, and I wish that the Cabinet and the Secretary of State would repudiate those remarks and clearly say that they oppose them.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) whose speech was thoughtful, well measured and sensible. It was no surprise that he received barracking from Tory Back Benchers, which is not unusual when a Conservative Member makes a speech that is liberal and progressive and does not pander to prejudices. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman; he should stick to his guns.
Contract compliance is about local government democracy and the freedom of local government to determine its own affairs. It is about more than that—it is about good training for young people, the employment of disabled people and health and safety at work—but it is not about pandering to prejudice. It is about allowing local government to lay down criteria that will make Britain a juster, fairer and freer society. That is why we tabled new clause 6 and new clause 7 and why we shall prevent Tory Back Benchers, who are to the Right of even the Secretary of State for the Environment, from defeating new clause 5.

Mr. Ridley: We have had a wide-ranging debate on a rather narrow point, but I make no complaint about that. The debate has been wide and varied and has prompted some pretty strong stuff, although I am glad to say that there was minimal use of the word "racist". The most crucial and telling phrase came from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who talked about grubby hands grappling with the entrails of the Government. I would not say that the debate had gone as far as that, and my entrails are certainly feeling quite well, despite what we have heard this evening.
I should like to answer briefly the specific points that hon. Members have raised. I shall formulate four, five or six approved questions on race relations and put them out for consultation—including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities if that is what the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) wants—and anybody wishing to comment will be able to do so. They will be standard questions that cannot be varied, and the powers will be exercised, as the new clause says, in writing by me without an opportunity for the House to pray against them, but they will be placed in the Library.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I should say that I do not believe that there can be an abuse of these questions. They will have to be standard questions, and a local authority can, on receipt of the answers, decide not to let the contract to the lowest tender. In that case, it will have to satisfy the auditor, and perhaps the wider electorate, that it had good reason for so doing.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any guidance as to how easy it would be for a Labour Secretary of State, should the Labour party ever get into power, to change the questions? How long would it take to change them?

Mr. Ridley: The Labour party could change a great deal. It would not stop at changing the nature of the questions. We cannot for ever insulate the great British public from the possibility of having a Labour Government. However, we have not done badly recently.

Mr. Marlow: When my right hon. Friend sets out his approved questions, will they be the last word, or will the Commission for Racial Equality or other organisations be able to take his questions to court and say that they conflict with the Race Relations Act 1976 and that he must bring forward some other questions?
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lennox- Boyd.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Ridley: The questions will be set out by me. They will not be decided by the CRE. The CRE will be consulted but the decision will be for the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry asked why we included only section 71(a) of the Race Relations Act in the Bill. The answer is to be found in section 71(b) which states:
to promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups.
That is obviously a worthy objective, but it is hard to see how it can be secured, particularly in the matter of contract compliance. It could be wildly abused if it were an unrestrained duty on local authorities, who could use it as a loophole to escape the provisions of the Bill in relation to contract compliance. Having listened to the debate, we still think it would be better only to include section 71(a) for reasons that I will develop later. It is already a duty on local authorities, and we want to limit the scope of those questions in the way that I have described because of the way in which the loophole could have been enlarged to include everything in relation to South Africa and other matters that have caused concern.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Northampton, North and others want to go as far as to repeal section 71 of the Race Relations Act. They were kind enough to say that I had voted against the Race Relations Bill. I certainly did. I have voted against a large number of Bills in my 28 years in the House, and I regret that many of them are still on

the statute book. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, one has come to accept that times change and the logic of matters alters, so one is happy to live with some of those Acts. I was glad to hear that he shares with me the view that he is now prepared to accept the Race Relations Act, even though he called it a little bit of nonsense. He said he simply wanted to remove section 71 by his new clause.
I believe that the changed opinion is partly because the Commission for Racial Equality has been demonstrating a much more balanced and reasonable approach, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said. Indeed, in a newspaper today it condemns reversed discrimination, which must be an encouraging sign. Whatever we feel about the Race Relations Act or the CRE, we should make amendments to that aspect of policy only by the vehicle of a Race Relations Bill. I assure the House that the Government have no proposal to put forward such a Bill at present.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) adjured us to stick to the subject of the debate. If I may say so, he spent most of his speech debating race relations. I do not believe that it is right to try to amend the race relations legislation in the Local Government Bill; nor is it right to amend legislation in relation to the disabled, to terms and conditions of employment or to equal opportunities by an amendment to this legislation. The fundamental point is that section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 places two duties on local authorities. It is possible, and likely, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will propose legislation which imposes a similar duty in Northern Ireland. Here I reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). If it is expressly laid down by Parliament that local authorities have a duty to do this, that or the other, it cannot be right for the Local Government Bill to be in conflict with that duty. People, like my hon. Friends, may wish to change the statute. A list has been given tonight of possible changes to a number of statutes. That takes the matter far beyond my departmental responsibilities and raises issues which should be considered as a whole within the context of the governing legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman clearly confirm the implication of his statement, that the Government stand entirely by the Race Relations Act, and section 71, and have no intention of repealing any or all of it, either now or for the period of this Administration?

Mr. Ridley: I thought that I had said that we have no such plans. It is not for me to make binding declarations for all time on behalf of a colleague who is not present, although the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is here. I do not think that I can be smoked out on an amendment such as this on something that is irrelevant to the Bill. I have been pretty fair in giving the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) the assurance that he seeks.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State is really saying that the Government choose not to act to amend the Bill to enable equal opportunities for women and better employment opportunities for disabled people to take place through local government action, so what answer does he give Baroness Platt of the Equal Opportunities Commission, who has written to the Government asking them to do just that?

Mr. Ridley: A reply has been given to Baroness Platt. The answer is that there are no proposals to change the equal opportunities legislation. If it were changed in the way that she seeks, clearly this legislation would have to be changed as a consequence. The Local Government Bill does not promote equal opportunities, racial equality or help for the disabled; it fits contract compliance into the existing statutes on all these matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the equal opportunities legislation and the Race Relations Act are different in the way that they place burdens on local authorities for enforcement. That is the central point.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) talked about the need to improve the lot of the disabled. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 established a voluntary register of disabled people. It obliges employers who are below the relevant quota-3 per cent. of their total work force to be registered disabled — to take steps to rectify that matter. But—this is crucial—it is not an offence to be below quota; nor is it the job of local authorities to check, monitor and enforce that quota. The employment service has a highly skilled team of people whose job it is to do that and who know whether firms are coming up to their quota requirements. They know the situation of disabled people looking for work in a particular area and how best to place such disabled people as there are vacancies for. That sophisticated job is done by the Department of Employment. There is no requirement on local authorities to do it. If the hon. Member for Copeland wants to change those arrangements, he should do it by persuading my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to improve the working of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act.
Finally, the hon. Members for Copeland, for Tottenham and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) asked me about the use of local labour conditions. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—

Mr. Ashley: The legal requirement on all employers with more than 20 workers is being blatantly disregarded by most employers. Many are breaking the law by not fulfilling the quota requirement and not having a permit not to take on the full number of workers. Most local authorities do not fulfil their moral obligations and the Secretary of State is doing nothing about that. Contract compliance is the only answer.

Mr. Ridley: It is not an offence to be below quota. If an employer is below quota, he must not engage anyone other than a registered disabled person or discharge one from his work force without a permit from the employment service. That is the law. The employment service is the enforcement agent. One cannot just take out the employment service and replace it with the local authorities. That is my sole point.
The use of local labour conditions would, in our legal opinion, contravene European Community rules. We have looked closely at the legal opinion obtained by the Opposition. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government has already written to the hon. Member for Copeland, and copied the letter to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, to say that nothing in that opinion causes us to change our view. The

Opposition in their new clause seek to restrict such conditions to inner-city areas or regions of high unemployment and to try to limit local workers to a reasonable percentage of the work force who are unemployed. In the Government's view, and according to our advice, such devices do not offer any way round the relevant EEC directives. As I explained in full on Second Reading, the way to achieve employment of inner-city residents is to ensure that our inner-city initiatives are designed to encourage firms to recruit local labour and to ensure that that labour is better trained and motivated to grasp the opportunities thus created.
I say to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that there are already cases before the European Court, and we must see how that court interprets the directives. We do not have any right to go to the court or to the Commission for an opinion. The action that the hon. Gentleman attempted to urge on me to get round this little local difficulty in Brussels is not a realistic possibility.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that on reflection the Secretary of State will accept that it is open to the Government—to the Attorney-General or to anybody else — to go to the Divisional Court here for a declaration. That could be referred to the European Court for a ruling. That could be done within a year and the Government would then have clarity. They would know whether they could do what the Secretary of State said he wishes to do.

Mr. Ridley: There is a case before the European Court. I suggest that we wait for the result of that case. That is the easiest and quickest way of proceeding and that is exactly what we are doing.
I commend new clause 5 to the House and suggest that it should reject the other new clauses.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 491, Noes 10.

Division No. 110]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bendall, Vivian


Adley, Robert
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Allason, Rupert
Benyon, W.


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Alton, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amess, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amos, Alan
Blair, Tony


Anderson, Donald
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boswell, Tim


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashdown, Paddy
Bowis, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Aspinwall, Jack
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkins, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkinson, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Batiste, Spencer
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Battle, John
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beckett, Margaret
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)






Buchan. Norman
Flannery, Martin


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Flynn, Paul


Burns, Simon
Fookes, Miss Janet


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Foster, Derek


Butterfill, John
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Callaghan, Jim
Fox, Sir Marcus


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Freeman, Roger


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
French, Douglas


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Galbraith, Samuel


Carrington, Matthew
Gale, Roger


Carttiss, Michael
Galloway, George


Cash, William
Gardiner, George


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Chapman, Sydney
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Chope, Christopher
George, Bruce


Churchill, Mr
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Goodlad, Alastair


Clay, Bob
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clelland, David
Gorst, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gould, Bryan


Coleman, Donald
Gow, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond


Conway, Derek
Graham, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Cope, John
Gregory, Conal


Corbett, Robin
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Cormack, Patrick
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Couchman, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Cousins, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cox, Tom
Grist, Ian


Cran, James
Grocott, Bruce


Critchley, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Cummings, J.
Grylls, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hanley, Jeremy


Darling, Alastair
Hannam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hardy, Peter


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Harris, David


Day, Stephen
Haselhurst, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Christopher


Dixon, Don
Hayes, Jerry


Dobson, Frank
Haynes, Frank


Doran, Frank
Hayward, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Douglas, Dick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heddle, John


Dunn, Bob
Heffer, Eric S.


Dunnachie, James
Henderson, Douglas


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Tony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Dykes, Hugh
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Eastham, Ken
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Emery, Sir Peter
Hill, James


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Hinchliffe, David


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Hind, Kenneth


Evennett, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Fallon, Michael
Holt, Richard


Farr, Sir John
Home Robertson, John


Fatchett, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Howard, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Fisher, Mark
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)





Howell, Rt Hon D. (S heath)
Marek, Dr John


Howells, Geraint
Marland, Paul


Hoyle, Doug
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mates, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Maxton, John


Ingram, Adam
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Irvine, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Irving, Charles
Meacher, Michael


Jack, Michael
Meale, Alan


Jackson, Robert
Mellor, David


Janner, Greville
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Jessel, Toby
Michael, Alun


John, Brynmor
Miller, Hal


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mills, Iain


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Moate, Roger


Key, Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Morgan, Rhodri


Kirkhope, Timothy
Morley, Elliott


Knapman, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Knowles, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Knox, David
Moss, Malcolm


Lambie, David
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Moynihan, Hon C.


Lang, Ian
Mudd, David


Latham, Michael
Murphy, Paul


Lawrence, Ivan
Neale, Gerrard


Leadbitter, Ted
Needham, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Nelson, Anthony


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Neubert, Michael


Leighton, Ron
Newton, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Nicholls, Patrick


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Lewis, Terry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lightbown, David
O'Brien, William


Lilley, Peter
O'Neill, Martin


Litherland, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Livingstone, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Livsey, Richard
Page, Richard


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Paice, James


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Parry, Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Patnick, Irvine


Lord, Michael
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Loyden, Eddie
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Pawsey, James


McAllion, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


McAvoy, Tom
Pendry, Tom


Macdonald, Calum
Pike, Peter


McFall, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Portillo, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


McKelvey, William
Powell, William (Corby)


Maclean, David
Prescott, John


McLeish, Henry
Price, Sir David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Quin, Ms Joyce


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Radice, Giles


McTaggart, Bob
Raffan, Keith


McWilliam, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Madel, David
Redwood, John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Reid, John


Major, Rt Hon John
Rhodes James, Robert


Malins, Humfrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Mans, Keith
Richardson, Ms Jo


Maples, John
Riddick, Graham






Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Snape, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Soley, Clive


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Speed, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey
Speller, Tony


Roe, Mrs Marion
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Rogers, Allan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Rooker, Jeff
Squire, Robin


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Steen, Anthony


Rost, Peter
Steinberg, Gerald


Rowe, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
Stevens, Lewis


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Ryder, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Stott, Roger


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Strang, Gavin


Sedgemore, Brian
Sumberg, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Summerson, Hugo


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Sheerman, Barry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sims, Roger
Thorne, Neil


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Thornton, Malcolm


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Thurnham, Peter


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Tracey, Richard


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trippier, David





Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Jerry


Turner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilkinson, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wilson, Brian


Walden, George
Winnick, David


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wallace, James
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Walley, Ms Joan
Woodcock, Mike


Walters, Dennis
Worthington, Anthony


Ward, John
Wray, James


Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Widdecombe, Miss Ann



NOES


Body, Sir Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Budgen, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Dicks, Terry



Dover, Den
Tellers for the Noes:


Gill, Christopher
Mr. Tony Marlow and


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mr. Tim Janman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

PART I: EXEMPTIONS

`The Secretary of State shall provide that a defined authority may if it so decides treat 5% (or such higher figure as the Secretary of State may determine upon special application of the authority) of any defined activity as exempt from the provisions of competitive tendering laid down in Part I; and shall provide that a defined authority may if it so decides postpone 10% of the phased implementation of any defined activity as outlined in the Government's Consultation Paper.'. —[Mr. Rooker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause gives a brief exemption to the competitive tendering part of the Bill. It in no way contests the Bill's main thrust for compulsory competitive tendering, but it has some regard to the practicalities—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Rooker: It is quite clear that hon. Members are overwhelmed by the massive support for the right of local authorities to be able to ask questions of their contractors in respect of race relations. That should delight all concerned.
New clause 2 has some regard to the practicalities of implementation of the Bill in respect of competitive tendering. We take the view that local authorities having to put services out to competitive tender unless that activity costs less than £100,000 is not practical. That threshold is so low that few authorities will be able to take advantage of the provision. The vast majority of authorities would therefore have to put out 100 per cent. of their activity covered by the Bill.
We think that there are good reasons why local authorities should be given some small discretion to keep a part of their activity in house. In our consultations, we established that the Government might be amenable to allowing local authorities flexibility and allowing them to retain 5 per cent. of their activity in house to cater for special circumstances. They clearly decided not to do that. We think that they should reconsider.
I shall not give the many available examples that show why authorities might wish to say—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It would be helpful if hon. Members could conduct their private conversations quietly.

Mr. Rooker: There are small parts of the activities of some local authorities that can legitimately be considered special, to warrant special provision and to justify retention as in-house services. For example, I understand that the Turkish baths in Harrogate are run by the city council and that it may not wish to put them out to compulsory competitive tender.
Some authorities run colleges of agriculture as part of local authority education provision, and one authority has the ornamental grounds of such a college tended by four full-time, non-teaching but demonstrator members of staff. It will be absurd if that college teaches horticulture yet is not allowed to tend its own grounds. There is the counter-argument that the in-house organisation could

win the contract, but that is not good enough. It is clear that cheapness will be an overriding factor in the Government's view. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has said that there will be no requirement to accept the cheapest tender, but we believe that cheapness will be the paramount consideration when minuscule local authority activities are under examination.
There are authorities —Leeds city council is one— that have national plant collections and sites of special scientific interest. I understand that Leeds has seven sites of special scientific interest. The employment of an outside contractor, with the practical and commercial constraints to which he will be necessarily subject, will preclude the continuous exercise of skills and flexibility of labour to ensure the preservation of important national collections. It would be ludicrous to force out to competitive tender works of that sort. That is why the new clause sets an exemption figure of 5 per cent.
There are other examples, but time precludes me going into substantial detail. Meals-on-wheels provision is currently tied to kitchens in homes or day centres that are exempt under paragraph 3 of schedule 14. That makes catering cost-effective, but, as things stand, authorities will be forced to separate two types of catering where economies of scale and integration operate. The 5 per cent. flexibility provision would allow authorities to continue to organise catering in the present manner and to produce meals on wheels from exempt kitchens.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the arguments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker): The new clause is compatible with the Minister's arguments in Committee. When the Government's consultation exercise on sport and leisure was outlined in Committee, it was to be noted that the Minister for Local Government emphasised that the proposals were subject to parliamentary consideration and review. Emphasis was laid on flexibility.
The proposal that is embodied in the new clause was suggested to Opposition parties by the Association of County Councils. The association contemplates with difficulty the concept of 100 per cent. contracting out, and, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr says, it had specific reasons for not wanting to contract out every service. The example that I thought the hon. Member for Perry Barr would cite is Headingley cricket ground.

Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Gentleman quotes that, he is wrong. That is the reason I did not quote it.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has scored one there. None of the test grounds may be owned by local authorities. Certainly sports grounds of national importance are owned by local authorities and they are exactly the sort of facilities that, for civic reasons, local authorities may decide to hold on to.
I hope the Minister will accept that the intention of the Bill and the way its implemention is proposed do not preclude accepting flexibility and responsiveness to local need and preference. If the Minister does not accept the exact wording proposed, I hope that he will accept the intention of the new clause as a response to requests by local authorities.

Mr. John Battle: In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr.


Rooker), I underline that the purpose of the new clause is to bring flexibility into the Bill. As it stands, at the core of the Bill are rigid proposals for competitive tendering which propose 100 per cent. of the specified activities. The Secretary of State opened the Second Reading debate with the following statement:
The free operation of the market is the best way … The Government have increased competition since 1979… with dramatic results.
In the same debate the Minister for Local Government said that the Bill was based on the simple proposition that local government
services, in common with services in other areas of economic life, will be provided more efficiently if they are subjected to competition." —[Official Report, 6 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 80–145.]
These simple propositions need evidence to back them up. I was interested to glance at those other services. In the Financial Times this morning, under the headline:
Laundries find NHS tendering 'a failure'
we read:
Competitive tendering in the National Health Service has been a failure for laundry contractors, according to the industry's main employers' group. The Association of British Laundry, Cleaning and Rental Services has said unless the Government changes the competition regime, 'very shortly private contractors are likely to cease tendering for any NHS contracts.'
Under these proposals, rigid as they are, I suggest that that will happen in local government as well.
The point was made repeatedly in Committee when we invited the Government to try to imagine their Bill being carried into practice. We invited them to have regard to the detail of implementing its provisions in a variety of different circumstances and special conditions. For example, the de minimis provision is so long that very few local authorities would be able to taken advantage of it. In Committee the Government rejected our amendments which had been tabled to enable local authorities to respond to exceptional circumstances, emergencies, disasters and situations of urgent need within the limits of their in-house resources, depleted though they have been by the Government.
Local authorities need flexibility. They need elbow room to do the job of providing local services for local needs. All the new clause proposes is that
a defined authority may if it so decides"—
I emphasise that phrase, "if it so decides"—
treat 5 per cent.… of any defined activity as exempt".
There is no reference in the Bill to the circumstances of local authorities, which vary greatly in different areas. It is unlikely that in the city that I represent, Leeds, there would be coastal flooding, but there may be in other areas. Those authorities may need the back-up of emergency services. On Second Reading we had a substantial discussion on the problems of storm damage in London.
Let us consider another example. A school meals supplier might break the contract conditions or there might be a dispute about the provision of school meals. In those circumstances, a local authority should surely have the power to make temporary arrangements to provide the meal services to schoolchildren or to elderly people in sheltered homes. Surely common sense tells us that a rupture in the provision of the service would be to the detriment of the people who need that service. Why cannot the meals-on-wheels provision currently tied to local kitchens in homes and day-centres be covered by a clause

introducing 5 per cent. flexibility? Surely local authorities need back-up in the face of contract failure? That is a basic necessity. If an authority contracts out all the refuse provision, how on earth can the Secretary of State explain how a local authority can step in and clear away rubbish in the street if the contract fails? Local authorities will not be able to plug gaps with in-house services if they have no in-house services. New clause 2 provides for such services.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
As anyone who has contracted-out services knows, it is easy to develop sophisticated systems to ensure that the specification is delivered. Occasionally, contracts go wrong…But in the vast majority of cases these problems are quickly sorted out".—[Official Report, 6 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 82.]
The evidence in the Financial Times about the Health Service proves the opposite. The Secretary of State's comment demonstrates a complacent over-confidence in the face of all the evidence just as the clause as it stands will massively underestimate the practical problems of implementation of the proposals that will be faced by local authorities and the contractors.
10.45 pm
I want to refer to two analogies referred to in the Standing Committee. Conservative Members often referred to Marks and Spencer as a model estate on which local government should be restructured. They forgot to mention that Marks and Spencer has its own in-house services because its operations cannot be totally at the mercy of contracted-out work. With reference to contract failure, it was interesting that the Minister for Local Government drew attention in Committee to the analogy of a car breakdown. He said that one has only to think of car breakdown recovery services which provide a 24-hour emergency service most efficiently. He suggested that the idea of 24-hour emergency car services would apply in local government circumstances. However, that analogy is fatally flawed. There is no Department of the Environment 24-hour cover and there is no RAC or AA to back up local authorities that have contracted-out all their cleansing and meal services. The point is that not everyone in Britain has a car, but everyone needs some of the basic services provided by local authorities for the public. Authorities are being forced to contract those services out at the expense of people not receiving that service.
It is also true that two or three large monopolies provide the services for car repairs in the event of breakdowns. They have developed national cover. However, it is one thing to wait on a motorway for a couple of hours before receiving attention, but it could be a criminal gap in provision if elderly people miss out on the main meal of the day as a result of contract failure. Gaps could be absolutely crucial in the provision of services to local people. Contract failure without back-up could mean that people have to live in unendurable circumstances until work gets done.
I forgot to mention one car recovery service by name, the National Breakdown Service. That may well prove to be an apt description of the practical impact of the Bill in terms of local services provision. If the Bill is passed in its present rigid form, there will be a national breakdown in the provision of vital services. As it stands, the Bill is rigid and repressive. If it is not changed by the new clause, the Bill will prove to be brittle and built on the iron will of Tory ideology. If unamended, in practice it will crack on the first testing.

Mr. Adam Ingrain: As one who has served in local government for seven and a half years, I think that I can say with some authority that the vast majority of people associated with it view the Bill as insensitive and unresponsive to the needs of local communities. It is riddled with prejudice and devoid of practicality.
New clause 2 attempts to write a modicum of common sense into what many see as a wholly bad Bill. There are three reasons why local authorities should be allowed to exempt a minimum base of services subject to competitive tendering, as set out in the new clause. First, as my hon. Friends have said, they need a back-up to respond to emergencies. Secondly, they need to be able to deal with private monopolies. Thirdly, they need to be able to respond to contractor failure, to protect the health and welfare of the communities served by them.
Clearly, emergencies can and will occur. The night of Thursday 15 October is a classic case in point. The subject was much debated in Committee, when the Minister for Local Government stated:
Perhaps it is worth putting on record that the London borough of Wandsworth was able to call on the services of several contractors, who turned out at very short notice, despite there being no prior arrangement.
But what happens in remote rural communities, such as those in the highlands and islands of Scotland, where there is not a multiplicity of alternative contractors? The Minister did not answer that question properly in Committee; I hope that we shall hear a proper answer tonight.
The same argument applies to private monopolies, which clearly exist in remote rural areas. There may well be only one contractor. If the contractor wins a contract against a local authority and the authority is compelled to wind up its activity, how will it measure the worth of the contractor if it has no minimum base of in-house services to set against it?
We must also remember that the Bill deals with sensitive issues involving public health. If a contractor providing refuse collection goes bust, having won 100 per cent. of the contract from a local authority in a remote rural area, and there is no available alternative, how does that authority provide an immediate response to the pileup of rubbish, with all its attendant health problems?
In Committee, the Minister for Local Government said:
under the Bill as drafted, the worst that can happen in the unlikely event of contractor failure is that the authority may have to wait a few weeks out without grass being cut, for example, while a fresh competition is arranged."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 October 1987; c. 248–49.]
If that were the only problem, I am sure that many people would not get too excited about it. However, it will not be the only problem. When public health is at issue, there must he an immediate response to a contractor going bust.
I have quoted two answers from the Minister to two very sensitive points, to which he did not respond properly in Committee. That is why I am arguing that new clause 2 should be fully supported, and I shall welcome any response from the Minister to what I have said.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Bill, which is a prolonged and gratuitous insult to the mass of local authorities, is based on the sins of a handful of local authorities of many parties and the mythology that has resulted which has been believed by the Government. Throughout the 90 hours that the Bill spent in Committee,

the Minister from the Welsh Office did not utter one word, and Hansard will record that fact. At one point he went to sleep, and Hansard will record that. During the four hours that we have been discussing the Bill on Report today, a representative of the Welsh Office has not been present.
The Bill is alien and malicious. The myth that the Government are perpetuating, that they are pursuing the idea of unfettered competition red in claw and fang, is untrue. The Government pursue competition in a limited way. The Minister was challenged to allow local authorities, if they are deprived of services and sectors in which their DLOs and other direct services are operating, in a similar unfettered way to go into sectors where private contractors work, but that was firmly turned down by him. The Minister gave the strange excuse that local authorities should not be allowed to take any risks with ratepayers' money. By the same token, those ratepayers are being denied an opportunity to gain.
When the Bill was in Committee a group of Welsh local authorities in my county started a successful enterprise —private industry is not delivering—manufacturing, for their own use, double-glazed windows. That is one of the good reasons why DLOs were set up.
Gwent and Newport have had prodigious success, to the benefit of the community, in leisure, sport and recreation. Uniquely, Gwent has highly cost-effective leisure centres attached to schools. They are used by schools by day and by the rest of the community during the evening. It has obtained good value for the population. However, there is no way in which that omelette can be unscrambled; there is no way in which it can be done competitively.
My constituency has a magnificent leisure centre. It was built by the local authority and it is an excellent example of municipal enterprise. It was the scene in June of a successful political meeting, at which the Prime Minister was present. It was successful in that it resulted in a Labour party gain in the constituency. However, that splendid building was erected not to make money, but as a far-sighted cushion against unemployment and the enforced leisure that the community would have to face. The purpose of creating leisure facilities is not financial, but sporting, social and recreational. None of those aims will be served by the Bill; they will be frustrated by it.
The Bill will be seen by local authorities throughout Wales as something that is alien, malicious and deeply misconceived.

Mrs. Fyfe: At least I can say that a representative of the Scottish Office is present, even if he has been silent until now.
Does the Minister intend to protect Scottish local authorities that have collections from the effects of the Bill, or are the Government still determined to allow famous collections, such as Glasgow's botanic gardens, to be put at risk by the tendering process that is set out in the Bill?

11 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I hope that the House will reject the new clause because any competition-free allowance, even the 5 per cent. suggested in the new clause, is highly suspect when it is clear that authorities that have contracted out services voluntarily have


generally contracted them out in their entirety. The fact is that there is no reason to take the view that contractors are not perfectly capable of doing the whole job, whatever that job is. A 5 per cent. allowance would be an arbitrary and meaningless concession, serving no useful purpose. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) failed to say how meaningful it would be if a local authority decided that it would retain 5 per cent. of its refuse collection service in-house. Of course that would be manifestly absurd, but that is what the new clause proposes.
I must point out to the House that the details of the implementation of competition are still subject to—

Mr. Ingram: If the Minister read the new clause he would see that it goes further than that. A statement within it in parenthesis says:
or such higher figure as the Secretary of State may determine upon special application of the authority.
Therefore, the Secretary of State could deal with the problem himself.

Mr. Chope: The Secretary of State is dealing with the problem by saying that the whole of the refuse collection service should be put out to competitive tender. If the House needs any reminder of what economies can result from putting refuse collection services out to tender, it need look no further—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about Wandsworth?

Mr. Chope: Yes, perhaps Wandsworth. It is interesting that, during the Committee proceedings, a crucial by-election was taking place in the London borough of Wandsworth. Before the voting, Labour Members suggested that it would be a defeat for the Conservative party and an endorsement of their line on competitive tendering. What happened was that the local electorate voted enthusiastically for the policies of Wandsworth council.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister mentioned 5 per cent. of refuse disposal, and it was pointed out that that was a base level. Surely the Minister would accept, for example, that if a local authority has a particular expertise in the disposal of hazardous waste, clearly that would not necessarily be appropriate for contracting out to a general waste disposal contractor.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee and I can understand why he has not appreciated that the Bill at present deals only with the collection of refuse rather than the disposal of it. As has been said, they are two different activities.
As I was saying, no final decisions have yet been taken on implementation of the competition provisions for the new activities, and it is not possible to say in advance of consideration of responses to the consultation paper whether an adequate case will be made out for some competition-free allowances such as have been argued for by Labour Members.
The fact that it is worth while for local authorities to contract out their services or to go out to competitive tender is emphasised by a report in last Friday's South London Press where we read that Greenwich council, which has up to now kept all its services in-house, has suddenly found that it needs to save some money.

Overnight, it is suggesting that it should change from three-person to two-person teams for household rubbish collection and that it intends to reduce drivers' overtime, thereby saving about £160,000. If that council had submitted its refuse collection service to competitive tender a long time ago it would have found that those savings, and probably many more besides, would have been realised to the benefit of the ratepayers in that borough.
As to the suggestion that authorities be permitted to delay implementation of competition, the wording of the new clause seems to allow postponement to be indefinite, in which case the effect would be the same as a permanent competition-free allowance. Even if some lesser delay is proposed, I fail to see any merit in it. The quicker all of those services are exposed to competitive pressures the better. A concession of this sort would confuse matters and tend to make contracts less attractive to potential competitors.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Instead of telling us about Wandsworth and Greenwich, will the hon. Gentleman concentrate on the problem in Scotland? What happens on a Scottish island or in a remote rural area when services are privatised and the new firm goes bankrupt? Can essential daily services continue? I do not particularly wish to hear about Wandsworth, but I should like to hear about the Shetlands and the remoter areas of Scotland. Will the Minister answer that question?

Mr. Chope: I shall happily deal with that point. I thought that we had covered it extensively in Committee. If a local authority has an emergency, it is exempt from the Bill's provisions. If a local authority has contracted out its services and the contractor goes bankrupt or in some other way defaults, it will be possible for the local authority to submit the services to re-tender. If no contractors come forward in that process, it obviously follows that the direct labour organisation will probably win the contract. We do not see any problem with that. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not understood the process that will be involved when the legislation is on the statute book.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 310.

Division No. 111]
[11.05 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Allen, Graham
Buchan, Norman


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Margaret
Coleman, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Blair, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Keith
Cryer, Bob


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cummings, J.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence






Cunningham, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alastair
McTaggart, Bob


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McWilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson. Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Doran, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunnachie, James
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alexander
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Murphy, Paul


Galbraith, Samuel
Nellist, Dave


Galloway, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Brien, William


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pendry, Tom


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Pike, Peter


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Radice, Giles


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Reid, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robinson, Geoffrey


Heffer, Eric S.
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Douglas
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchliffe, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Home Robertson, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sheerman, Barry


Howells, Geraint
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Short, Clare


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Soley, Clive


Ingram, Adam
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Greville
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Steinberg, Gerald


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Stott, Roger


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lambie, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lamond, James
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Leighton, Ron
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Turner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Litherland, Robert
Wall, Pat


Livingstone, Ken
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard
Walley, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wareing, Robert N.


Loyden, Eddie
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McAllion, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAvoy, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


McCartney, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Macdonald, Calum
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McFall, John
Wilson, Brian


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Winnick, David


McKelvey, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey





Worthington, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, James
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mrs. Llin Golding.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob


Allason, Rupert
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Emery, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fallon, Michael


Ashby, David
Farr, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkins, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gale, Roger


Benyon, W.
Gardiner, George


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gow, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CarnbsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grist, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Ground, Patrick


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Irving, Charles


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Janman, Timothy






Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rowe, Andrew


Knowles, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knox, David
Ryder, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Latham, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Lewis


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mates, Michael
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Summerson, Hugo


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miller, Hal
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thorne, Neil


Moate, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Trippier, David


Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Onslow, Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walters, Dennis


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Warren, Kenneth


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Raffan, Keith
Woodcock, Mike





Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and



Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

DOG LICENCE

`(1) The duty charged under the Dog Licences Act 1959 on Licences for dogs shall from the date set out in subsection (5) and subject to subsection (2), be determined by a London borough, or district council, as appropriate at a level of not less than £10 per annum and not more than £20 per annum in any financial year and shall be allocated by the authority to the funding of a dog warden service in its area.
(2) No duty shall be charged in respect of any dog which is:—

(a) a trained guide dog kept for the purpose of assisting a blind or partially-sighted person;
(b) a dog kept for the purpose of work in connection with the maintenance of livestock or gamekeeping;
(c) a dog whose owner has attained the age of statutory retirement.

(3) in Section 1 of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act 1933 (disqualification for keeping a dog of any person convicted of cruelty to dogs), at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(5) For the purposes of this section a person shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to keep a dog—

(a) if it is found or seen in that person's custody, charge or possession, or in his house or premises;
(b) in the case of hounds, if he is their owner or master."

(4) In section 1 of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) (Scotland) Act 1934 (disqualification for keeping a dog of any person convicted of cruelty to dogs), at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection
(5) For the purposes of this section a person shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to keep a dog—

(a) if it is found or seen in that person's custody, charge or possession, or in his house or premises;
(b) in the case of hounds, if he is their owner or master."

(5) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.".—[Mr. Rooker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following: New clause 10—Dangerous dogs—
'( ) A local authority shall be empowered to draw up a register of dangerous dogs and will be entitled to inspect premises to ensure adequate care and security where such dogs are kept.'.
Amendment No. 29, in page 30 line 1, leave out clause 33.

Mr. Rooker: There are some important aspects to this debate. Dog licences were discussed in Committee during only one sitting out of 29, so it cannot be said that we made a full meal of it. We thought it right to discuss the matter further on Report for the simple reason that the Government made it difficult to amend the clause as they sought to abolish dog licences. The Opposition proposed an amendment as an alternative to abolishing dog licences which was not taken as it was out of order. We gave notice then that we would table an amendment on Report, which we have done in the form of the new clause.
I shall not repeat the speech that I made upstairs, nor do I expect my hon. Friends to repeat their speeches. We


emphasise that local authorities are not opposed to dog ownership. They are not anti-dog, but they are opposed to irresponsible dog ownership. I think that all hon. Members would share that opposition. The vast majority of dog owners are responsible people, although only half of them seem to pay the dog licence. One hon. Member, who shall be nameless, boasted in the Committee about his illegality in not paying for licences for his two dogs. He was not a law-breaking Labour Member but a lawbreaking Conservative Member.
The present situation is ludicrous and cannot be allowed to continue. We spend £3·5 million to collect £1 million and the public must think that Parliament has taken leave of its senses in not having tackled this issue before. The way in which we tackle it is where we are divided. The Government have taken the easy way out by deciding to abolish the licence. That was not always their intention. It is much better to propose a system for which we think there is a consensus: a well-funded and adequate dog licence scheme.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the Government have shown remarkable cowardice in not dealing with the situation in England, Scotland and Wales, they have dealt with it in Northern Ireland? As far as one can make out, they have dealt with it very successfully there, and there has not been massive civil disobedience as a result of Northern Ireland people deciding not to pay the new dog licence fee. The problem of sheep worrying and other problems caused by dogs have been largely solved in Northern Ireland. For once, would it not be worthwhile taking a leaf out of the Northern Ireland statute book and having such legislation here? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Rooker: I notice "Hear, hears" from Conservative Back Benchers. This is not the first time today that the Government's policy in Northern Ireland has been contradicted by Department of Environment Ministers. In our debate in which contract compliance was raised, the policy that the Government operate and for which they legislated in Northern Ireland is not the same as the legislation in England, Scotland and Wales. Quite clearly, there is also a difference between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of dog licences.
The problems caused by dogs can be summarised by and large as the problem of strays, fouling of public places, traffic accidents, worrying of livestock, transmission of disease, and noise. Those problems will not be eradicated, by a higher dog licence or, indeed, by a dog licence in the first place. They could be eradicated, or at least seriously tackled to the benefit of the wider community, if we had funded dog wardens. We object to having such a system funded by the poll tax. If the dog licence system does not fund the dog wardens, they will have to be paid for by the poll tax. We are not prepared to accept that because our constituents will not accept it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because apart from all the other ramifications of the poll tax, tackling dog nuisance and funding dog wardens should not be paid for by the wider community by way of the poll tax. It is in the interests of responsible dog owners to have properly funded dog wardens. Indeed, that is in everbody's interest and there is no reason why such a scheme cannot be funded by dog owners through dog licences.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. Does he not accept that if we have a substantial dog licence fee, the people who will pay it will be responsible dog owners? They will have to suffer because of the irresponsible minority.

Mr. Rooker: That is true, but dog wardens will tackle the problems caused by irresponsible dog owners. At the moment nobody is tackling that problem. It is occasionally left to the police and in the city of Birmingham, with 1 million people and perhaps 100,000 dogs, to one dog warden. For a population of perhaps one million people, there is one dog warden. He just cannot cope with the problem.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am keen to make progress.

Mr. Hughes: I shall not stop the hon. Gentleman making progress. The point is exactly parallel to that regarding four-wheeled vehicles on the roads. The responsible people who pay their vehicle excise licence fees subsidise all those who do not pay. The same point applies to all other licences. We shall not get everybody to pay. It is not a perfect world. The argument is flawed unless it is accepted across the board, and it never has been accepted on the Government side.

Mr. Rooker: Of course the same applies to any licence. For example, I refer to the television licence.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: I shall not give way.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box giving way?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I support what he said. I just want to sustain the point he is making by saying that if we do have a dog warden system, the anti-social dog owner who is currently not paying for a licence will be found out and will be required to pay a licence. So all dog owners will pay for the licence.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I was right to give way, but I thought three times about it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
If shall not recite many of the statistics that are involved, but there are a couple that I must put on record. I have not checked the figures since the matter was considered in Committee. I apologise. Since 1978, figures have not been collected about the number of livestock that have been killed or injured because of dog worrying. I am not sure whether the collection of figures stopped because of the election of the Conservative Government or whether we decided to cease collecting them. The figures for 1978 show that 5,700 livestock were killed and 3,140 were injured. In 1985, 1,200 road accidents involved clogs. In those accidents three people were killed and 1,400 were injured.
On the argument about transmission of disease, no fewer than between 50 and 100 people—half of them children — a year suffer from blindness from being affected by dog mess or, as is the case in respect of local


authority workers, cutting grass kerbs which serve, for irresponsible dog owners, as dog lavatories—not outside their houses, of course, but outside somebody else's house. The range is fairly wide because of the non-reporting of the matter. One must pick up the figures from institutions for special diseases and hospital reports. It is unacceptable that between 50 and 100 people a year go blind strictly as a result of irresponsible dog owners who could be controlled by a dog warden scheme that is funded by a proper dog licence system. In the end, the matter goes back to the dog licence issue.
Many countries apart from Northern Ireland have dog licences. Since 1984, at a cost of £5, Ireland has had a dog licence and dog warden scheme. The situation in Germany varies. Dog licences cost between £19 and £76. It actually varies according to the type of dog involved. Believe it or not, in Holland the price of a dog licence varies between £14 and £43, based not on the number of dogs but the rateable value of the dog owner's home. No doubt, we shall return to that point in Committee when we consider the poll tax legislation.
One other aspect relates to the effect on one section of our population — postmen and postwomen. To them, dog ownership and irresponsible ownership are important. A delegation from the Union of Communication Workers came to see me and my hon. Friends a few days ago. I had not thought the matter through as I should have done, and asked, "Why only the postmen? Why do I not get representations from bakers and milkmen?" They rightly put the point to me, "We are usually the first people in the day to put our hands through the letterboxes of the homes of irresponsible dog owners." The baker and the milkman do not have to do that. In 1986, no fewer than 5,560 postal workers were attacked by dogs. The Daily Telegraph of 20 August 1986 carried a report about a postwoman in Gloucester having been attacked by three alsatians, who tore off one of her ears. It is a damned serious business when one of our fellow citizens is put at risk —[Interruption.] Conservative Members find something funny about a postwoman being attacked by three alsatian dogs in Gloucester and having her ear ripped off. To laugh at that is a thundering disgrace.

Mr. David Harris: What difference would a dog licence have made?

Mr. Rooker: I am not defending a dog licence of only 37p that is paid for by only half the dog owners, because it could not fund a dog warden scheme. I am not attacking the quality of a dog warden scheme in Gloucester that allows three alsatians to attack a postwoman.

Mr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way.
That is where we part company with the Government. Whether dogs are licensed is irrelevant. Our argument is that that kind of incident would be less likely to happen if there were adequately funded dog warden schemes.

Mr. Harris: rose—

Mr. Rooker: That cannot be denied. I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman, just so that he can contain himself.

Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will the hon. Gentleman explain exactly what difference a dog warden scheme would have made in that case? Dog wardens would be unable to go round to each house to establish whether alsatians were likely to rip the ears off postwomen. If those dogs were licensed, what difference would it make?

Mr. Rooker: That is exactly what has happened in Northern Ireland since the law was changed. We do not expect every door to be knocked on, but our point is that, with an adequately funded dog warden scheme, it is less likely that there will be roaming packs of dogs.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In Carrick district council— a Liberal council — Mr. Hugh Baldry proposed successfully that a dog warden should be appointed. Carrick council is now funding a dog warden and it has proved to be a success. But does it not make far more sense that dog owners should pay for such a service and that it should not be a burden on the local community as a whole?

Mr. Rooker: Another point that has been put to me by postal workers is that there ought to be compulsory insurance for dog owners. That still leaves the problem of identification, but there ought to be compulsory insurance. If a postal worker is attacked by a dog the incident is reported to the head postmaster, who writes a letter to whoever lives at the address where the incident happened. The letter has to be delivered by the postal worker who reported the incident in the first place. That is ludicrous. The amendment does not deal with the proposal, but there is a case for considering the introduction of compulsory insurance for dog owners.
The Government ought to consider this proposal. We do not believe that there is a simple solution. There are many problems to be overcome, but we do not believe that a solution can be found simply by abolishing the dog licence. No serious attempt has be made to tackle the problem of stray dogs, packs of dogs and dog fouling, and no serious attempt will be made by hard-pressed local authorities to tackle those problems. They will be reluctant to say to their electorate that they intend to increase the poll tax to pay for a dog warden service. We do not think that they should be in that position.

Mr. Patnick: Does the hon. Gentleman regard the dog warden as an endangered species? Does he envisage them delivering the letter rather than the postal worker?

Mr. Rooker: No, I do not think that the dog warden is an endangered species. Rather it is the dogs of irresponsible owners who are endangered. The dog population would go down if there were dog wardens. There are an estimated 6·5 million dogs in Britain, but 1,000 a day are put down. It is a tragedy that animals which share this planet with us are put down on that scale because of irresponsible owners. It is because of that that we want the problem tackled. One way in which to do that is not to abolish the dog licence, but to increase it to £10 or £20 at the discretion of the local authority, to use the money only for a dog warden scheme and to have exceptions for working dogs, guide dogs and those owned by pensioners.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I declare an interest as the owner of three West Highland terriers. The House would not


expect me to declare that interest on financial grounds because of the gain I would make from the licence being abolished.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Are they all licensed?

Mr. Bowden: They are indeed. I am a member of the national advisory panel of PRO Dogs and I understand the well-meaning case that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has advanced. Nobody denies that there are irresponsible dog owners, but the evidence suggests that it is the most irresponsible dog owners who will not purchase a licence.
The proposed list of exemptions is to be found in subsection (2)(c) which reads:
a dog whose owner has attained the age of statutory retirement.
There are approximately 6 million dogs in Britain. I estimate that the proposed exemptions cover 2 million of them. How would the list be administered? We would have to set up a complicated and expensive bureaucratic system. We would require a Swansea for dogs. It is difficult enough to collect the licence fee for cars. We would have to establish an immensely costly system to collect a relatively small sum from, as a result of the proposed exemptions, about one third of the dog-owning population. Any such system would itself eat heavily into the revenue raised by a £20 licence.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are now spending an enormous sum and retrieving little. Moreover, the police are spending an enormous amount of time and money looking after stray dogs. That is a bad investment for the taxpayer. Why should we not have a decent investment producing a decent revenue and a decent service which looks after dogs? A licence fee of £10 would do that, even if not all dogs were licensed.

Mr. Bowden: I thought that I had explained that. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman was not listening.
The cost of setting up a system with computers and applications, for example, that would exclude one third of dog owners would be exhorbitant. That is why I suggest that we must seek other methods, and others are open to us.
I am a dog lover and a dog owner and I do not deny that a minority of dog owners pose a substantial problem by allowing their dogs to foul the pavements and, even worse, to run loose on the roads. How do we deal with that? Surely there should be fines based on identification. The police, and even dog wardens, are reluctant currently to take people to court because hours of valuable time for many people lead to fines of only £2 or £5. If a first offence attracted a minimum fine of £50, the impact would be considerable. That would certainly be so in Brighton, for example. The imposition of such a fine would attract press coverage and thereafter dog owners would be careful to prevent their dogs from fouling pavements—at present, too many do not care—and would not let their dogs run loose on the roads. That would be a practical and realistic approach.
There will be difficulty in collecting a licence fee. It has proved difficult to collect televsion licence fees—and we cannot have detector vans for unlicensed dogs. There are difficulties also in collecting motor car licence fees.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the greatest difficulty with fines is that it is

almost certain that the first person to be fined in any area for a dog nuisance offence would almost certainly be a pensioner, who would have difficulty in paying the fine? There are those who persistently allow their dogs to run free and cause a nuisance, whereas someone else's dog may escape on one occasion and thereby cause the owner to incur a fine. There is a danger that a system of fines will penalise good dog owners.

Mr. Bowden: I suspect that probably the most responsible section of dog owners is composed of the elderly and/or pensioners. They are much more likely than many others to have their dog on a lead and under control. In Brighton, I see dogs running loose. In nine cases out of 10 they are owned by people — not pensioners — who could well afford to pay a £50 fine, for example. If a pensioner happened to be the first person to be fined for such an offence, the court could ensure that time was given to pay. It would not be necessary for the fine to be paid immediately. The impact of a more substantial fine would be salutary.
In consultation with the RSPCA and other interested organisations, we should prepare an effective method of identification. That should be backed by a solid system of substantial fines. Such a system would deal more effectively with the problem than the provisions that are set out in the new clause.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the new clause, but that does not mean that I agree with everything within it. It is deplorable that, after 11 years of discussion, the Government have run away from the issue. In 1976, a working party firmly identified the existence of a major problem. It found that we were no longer a nation of dog lovers. Indeed, it was revealed that we were a nation of dog neglecters. For 11 years Governments have delayed taking action, and now we are faced with a decision to abolish the dog licence. No attempt has been made to address the real problem, which is that dogs suffer cruelty as a result of neglect.
The greatest merit of a substantial licence fee is that it would make prospective owners think before making a purchase or taking on dog ownership. We all know that there are pressures upon children to take a dog home as a pet. Some dogs will be cherished for a few months or for ever, but in many instances they will soon be neglected. If a youngster comes home from school and says that one of his friends is prepared to give him a puppy, the parents may take it because there is no cost involved. It is only when they have had the dog for some time that they appreciate the expense of feeding it and the other problems, and often the dog is neglected. If there were a licence fee at the point at which a person became the owner of a dog, it would make him stop and think about the commitment. It would ensure that fewer dogs were taken and neglected.
11.45 pm
If we had a substantial licence fee people would feel much more responsibility in looking after their clogs and would not, as happens in so many parts of the country, open the door first thing in the morning, kick the dog out and have very little more concern about what the dog does until it returns to be fed later in the day. If people were more concerned about their dogs, there would not be such appalling sheep-worrying —

Mr. Corbett: Does my hon. Friend agree that a spaying scheme would do away with the problem of packs of dogs around inner and outer-city council estates, driving people to distraction?

Mr. Bennett: I agree that spaying centres would be a useful development to solve some of the problems.
It was a sad day when the Government stopped collecting figures of the number of sheep and animals which are harmed by dogs. Anyone who has seen sheep which have been chased round and round a field and torn to bits by a pack of dogs is horrified. It is not just sheep but other animals which are worried by dogs. When statistics were kept, there were figures for horses and cattle which had been damaged by packs of dogs running round causing a nuisance.
In Northern Ireland when farmers complained about sheep-worrying and pointed out that the only solution was for them to carry guns to shoot the dogs that were causing the nuisance, the Government acted quickly and introduced an effective licence fee and dog warden system to solve the problem. It was, of course, undesirable in Northern Ireland to allow farmers with guns to deal with sheep-worrying. I do not see that it is any more satisfactory to have people walking around in this country trying to shoot dogs which are worrying sheep. It would be far better to tackle the problem by appointing dog wardens to impress on people their responsibility.
A licence fee would discourage people from taking on dogs without thinking seriously about it. It might do something to reduce the problem of the fouling of pavements, grass verges and sports fields. One of the most disgusting things I ever saw was a youngster scoring a try at rugby and sliding across the touchline straight into a pile of dog shit. That demonstrates how objectionable some dog owners are that they will specifically walk on to playing fields where they know that people will be enjoying sport and allow their dogs to foul those areas. It is objectionable that they use playing fields, but there are also problems in children's play areas in parks.
Dogs on the highway cause a substantial number of road accidents. There are many incidents of children being bitten by dogs. Not only do they suffer pain from the bite, but many of them fear dogs for the rest of their lives. That is a great pity for those youngsters.
I object particularly because the Government are simply running away from the problem. They have washed their hands of the whole thing and said that local authorities can provide dog wardens if they can raise the money from general rates. Even at this late stage, I suggest that the Government should come forward with a positive set of proposals for a dog warden service, paid for from the licence fee costing either £10 a year, suggested in the new clause, or involving a once-for-all fee paid when someone takes on the ownership of a dog.
We would not need a great bureaucracy to be set up at Swansea to record the system. It would be simple to sell a licence that could be clipped to the dog's collar to show whether someone had paid the licence fee and allow those who were exempted from paying because of age to have that exemption included in information on the collar.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman complained that rates would be wasted on cleaning up dog mess from pavements. Like all hon. Members, he must have received complaints from

constituents that they pay local rates, but do not use the education or social services which are the part of the general duty of a local authority in respect of all of its citizens. Why should the provision of dog wardens and the perfectly justifiable need to keep pavements and parks clean be a charge only on people who own dogs?

Mr. Bennett: I do not believe that a dog warden or anyone else should be involved in the clearing up. The one person who should be responsible for clearing up after a dog is the owner. We need someone to enforce that. That is the advantage of the dog warden.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the "poopa scoopa" schemes operating in other countries and, I believe, on the Isle of Wight? Owners can get a plastic bag and a cardboard shovel from a little machine on a street corner and clear up after their dogs.

Mr. Bennett: I am aware of that scheme. I am disappointed that such a scheme does not apply in 99 per cent. of this country, but it would be exceptional for anyone to act responsibly enough to use that scheme.
If there was a proper dog warden system across the country, the warden would give advice and no doubt encourage schemes like the "poopa scoopa". I support the new clause but deplore the fact that the Government have not come forward with their own specific proposals.

Mr. Tony Marlow: If I may declare three brief interests, first I am vice-president of the League for the Introduction of Canine Controls. It is a very valuable organisation which seeks to direct public attention to some of the problems associated with dogs and the need to deal with those problems and also, of course, the welfare of dogs.
Secondly—I think that it was the day the Americans invaded Grenada or somewhere — I had the good fortune to have a ten-minute Bill on the subject of the control and the welfare of dogs. The Bill that I put before the House was very similar to the measure proposed in the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) from the Opposition Front Bench. I am happy to say that on that occasion we had a vote and the overwhelming majority of the House— about 2:1—was in favour of a measure similar to that put forward by the hon. Gentleman today. I am disappointed that on an issue such as this, the Government have not seen fit to allow the House to have a free vote. I believe that on a free vote the measure would be overwhelmingly supported and passed.
That is an idea in its time and there is nothing quite as strong as an idea in its time. It is like movements on smoking, and anti-social smoking. Society has changed its view. It has moved and taken a new position, and so it is particularly in our urban areas with the nuisance of some dogs.
The third point of interest, I suppose, that I declare is that one of my sons as a small child picked up and was infected by the worm toxocara canis. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, 50 to 100 people a year are infected or damaged in some way by this disease. My son effectively lost the sight in one eye. It does happen. What the hon. Gentleman said is correct. It happened to my son when he was a small child. He knew nothing about it and he could do nothing to prevent it from happening to him.
People take their dogs — carelessly, sometimes casually—into public parks. The dogs defecate, and they


do not clear up after them. I am pleased to say that we are allowing local authorities to take measures, but they are still not complete.
The worm is in the faeces. It gets into the ground, and can stay dormant there for a long period. A small child, wandering or crawling around — perhaps having been eating a sweet—can pick up a bit of dirt in its fingers, suck its fingers and ingest the worm. It migrates throughout the system, and can cause epilepsy; it can also cause fits, asthma and—as I know, and my son knows —damage to the eyesight. That is a severe problem, and I believe that it is time that the Government addressed themselves to the issue more forcefully than by simply doing away with dog licences.
After noise — as I think that my hon. Friend the Minister would agree—the nuisance caused by dogs is about the biggest environmental problem that we face. That nuisance has been set out by many hon. Members, and I do not wish to go over the points that have already been made. Parks in many areas are disgraceful, however. Play areas where children go are covered in dog filth. If a mother wants to take her child into a play area, she has to watch every step that it takes. That is very unpleasant and distressing.
Blind people going for a walk using a stick can tell where the stick will take them, but not where they are going to put their feet or what they are going to tread in. When they go into their homes, they cross their carpets with the filth on their feet, because some anti-social person has allowed his dog to defecate on the pavement. We would not let human beings do it; why should we let dogs do it?
An increasing number of dangerous dogs are being kept not as pets or companions, but as macho symbols to build up the prestige of some little people in our society who want to frighten and humiliate others. That is something that dog wardens could keep an eye on.
There is also the problem of the latchkey dog. People get a dog at Christmas for a child, and are bored with it by Easter. They go out to work; they have a bored dog at home that they do not know what to do with; they open the door and let it out. It roams the streets, gets together with other dogs and forms a pack. They cause traffic accidents, or people are attacked: we often read of people being attacked by packs of dogs, and of children being savaged through people keeping the wrong sort of dogs in their homes.
Dog wardens would be able to start to deal with what is a growing problem in many urban areas. If we are to

have such a system, I think that we ought to allow local authorities to finance it. Different local authorities have different problems, and different local authorities have different perceptions of the problems. The beauty of the new clause is that it allows a sliding scale of licence fees. The areas with the worst problems could charge a higher licence fee, and thereby have a more effective and complete system of dog wardens for dealing with the problems of dogs—and not only that, but for helping people to see to the welfare of dogs that suffer and are badly looked after at present. They can provide advice and instruction for people thinking of getting dogs—

Mr. Bob Cryer: That is Socialism.

Mr. Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is Socialism, I do not think that he has been following the argument.
Let me make one further point. I have spoken about the latchkey dogs that are let out during the day to roam the streets. In my constituency, I often go around knocking on doors in the evening, canvassing—speaking to people, and feeling the pulse of the constituency to see what problems people have. One of the problems that is brought to me quite often is that of elderly ladies who dare not leave their houses during the day because if they do so a neighbour's dog will come bounding up and knock them over, having been left outside all day. What are we going to do about that?
I get in touch with a dog warden, because we have one in Northampton. We only have one, however, and we need more than that. The amendment would allow local authorities to introduce a proper system.
People say that we should not have a licence system. But what if rabies arrives here? How will we know where the dogs are? How will we control them? Is it really time, after 100 or so years, to throw out the system that would control any future menace from rabies? When it was introduced the licence cost 37½p—7s. 6d.—and in those days that constituted, for the working man, a week's wages.
What the hon. Member for Perry Barr is suggesting is that we should be allowed to increase the licence fee to £20, all of which would be spent on the control and welfare of dogs. I do not agree with every point in the hon. Gentleman's new clause, but it is courageous and worth supporting, and I certainly intend to do so.
Further consideration of the Bill adjourned. — [Mr. Howard.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered tomorrow.

Aircraft Accident (Stornoway)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

12 midnight

Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the aircraft accident that occurred at Stornoway aerodrome on 8 December 1983.
A Cessna Citation 500 aircraft crashed into the sea 10 miles south-east of Stornoway with the loss of 10 lives. The flight progress was negligently mishandled by the air traffic service unit at Stornoway during the 15 minutes before the aircraft was inadvertently flown into the sea. The pilot was effectively encouraged, as a result of the laxity of the air traffic controllers, to break mandatory rules that have been implemented for the very purpose of preventing this type of accident.
Senior management within the National Air Traffic Services, whose responsibility it is to advise the accidents investigation branch inspector on the air traffic control aspects of this accident, conspired to cover up the negligence of the Stornoway controllers — their fellow employees—because the matter reflects so badly on their own organisation.
There has been a deliberate misrepresentation of the air traffic controllers' involvement in this accident and an attempt to mislead my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport as addressee of the official accident report and, ultimately, to pervert the course of justice.
Late last year and early this year I corresponded with the Department of Transport on this matter. It came as no surprise that the replies were unsatisfactory and evasive, because they were provided on behalf of the Secretary of State by the very perpetrators of this deception. That is why I now urge my right hon. Friend to order an independent inquiry into the air traffic control aspects of the accident and to reopen the accident inspector's investigation so that the findings and cause can truly reflect the gross negligence displayed by the Stornoway air traffic controllers.
The facts of the case are that a Cessna Citation left Liverpool at 16.32 hours en route to Stornoway carrying a pilot, a pilot's assistant, six adult passengers and two infants. Another aircraft, a Citation Mk II, was carrying other members of the same private party. At 17.34 hours Stornoway ATC passed details of the aerodrome weather observation to both aircraft and asked them to report at 25 miles range from the aerodrome. The pilot of the Cessna Citation acknowledged the Stornoway weather but did not repeat back the altitude indication as required. Instructions to controllers require them to obtain a full read-back of messages containing an altimeter setting. This was the first of many omissions by Stornoway air traffic control.
At 17.40 hours the pilot of the Cessna Citation reported that his range was 25 miles and that he had the Citation MK II in sight. He asked for a clearance to continue his descent and was cleared by the Stornoway controller to descend at his discretion with the aircraft ahead in sight. The use of this procedure is permitted only during the hours of daylight, for reasons that must appear obvious to everyone. A moment later the pilot of the Cessna

Citation was asked to report when he had the airfield in sight for a visual approach. He acknowleged this message but no further communication was received from him.
An intensive search was made for the Cessna Citation that night, and two bodies were recovered. During the next four days, five more bodies and some small pieces of aircraft wreckage were found near the same position. The bodies of two more passengers were recovered from the seabed on 28 February and 5 June 1984 and that of the pilot's assistant on 18 July 1984. Attempts to recover the main wreckage were not successful. The inspector concludes that the balance of evidence indicates that the pilot was distracted from his aircraft instruments, probably by the need to re-establish visual contact with the aircraft ahead, that he had a false impression that he was at a safe height and that he failed to check the aircraft's descent until too late.
After studying the inspector's lengthy report in great detail and taking professional advice, it became patently clear to me that the balance of evidence referred to by the inspector had been doctored by the misrepresentations and falsifications relating to the air traffic control aspects of the accident. One of the contributory factors itemised in the accident report was based on the false premise that there was a definite need for the pilot of the Cessna Citation to establish visual contact with the aircraft ahead in order to maintain his own separation. For obvious reasons, the requirements for that procedure cannot be met during the hours of darkness. Therefore, the practice is specifically prohibited at night. The accident occurred at night.
I questioned the integrity of the report in a letter to the Secretary of State on 10 November last year when I expressed my belief that a miscarriage of justice had occurred resulting from the conclusions reached by the inspector of accidents. I went on to say:
A detailed study of the report reveals serious irregularities and discrepancies relating to the ATC aspects of the accident. Many of the claims and explanations in respect of the ATC involvement are at complete variance with regulations governing the provision of civil air traffic services in United Kingdom airspace. As a result, it is evident that the inspector has not been able to reach accurate and properly balanced conclusions.
I pointed out the glaring misrepresentations in the report, which states that it was necessary for the pilot of the aircraft to maintain visual contact with and his own separation from the aircraft ahead. Since that method of operation is applicable only during the hours of daylight, the statement in the report is a gross distortion of the rules relating to the procedure. Even if daylight prevailed, that procedure could not have been successful and should not have been permitted because the requirement for uninterrupted visual meteorological conditions clearly could not be met. That fact was confirmed by the pilot of the Citation Mk II and by the aftercast from the Meteorological Office. Contrary to the claim in the report, it was not reasonable, therefore, for the controller to assume that the pilot would maintain continuous visual contact with the preceding aircraft and follow it safely from a distance of 25 miles from the aerodrome. The controller's assumption was based solely on the aerodrome meteorological observation which, not exceptionally, was at marked variance with the conditions encountered by both aircraft in their descent towards Stornoway.
I also highlighted the gross inaccuracy in paragraph 2:7 of the report dealing with distance-measuring equipment,


or DME separation. The report claimed that with the reported DME ranges indicating that the two aircraft were separated by five nautical miles horizontally, the controller had no reason to advise an additional vertical separation. I pointed out that the manual of air traffic services clearly states that the minimum distance allowed when using DME separation is 15 miles. Moreover, there is no provision for allowing that sort of separation between two aircraft when both are descending on the same track or when aircraft are within 15 miles of the overhead of the DME ground station. Consequently, and contrary to the claim in the report, standard vertical separation was absolutely necessary.
If that absurd claim had been made under oath possibly the author and most certainly his ATC advisers would have been guilty of nothing less than perjury. The ATC advisers involved in the report must have had strong reasons for putting into print such a glaring falsehood. Undoubtedly they were confident that it would remain unquestioned because they were addressing only the uninitiated. We should know what those reasons were.
Another grave misrepresentation in the report is the attempt to justify the controller's misuse of reduced separation. It is claimed that the controller accepted the reduced standard separation applicable in the vicinity of the airfield to aircraft in visual contact. But the body of the report reveals that none of the requirements necessary for providing any form of reduced separation was properly met. Furthermore, the term "the vicinity of the airfield" cannot possibly extend to a range of 25 nautical miles from where the report implies that reduced separation was permitted, especially since the air and air traffic control regulations refer to it as the airspace which contains the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome.
I ended my letter by stating that the flaws and irregularities which I had detailed gave considerable cause for concern. One may conclude that either the accident inspector chose to disregard advice on air traffic control matters that would have been rendered by the Civil Aviation Authority or that he was deliberately misled by information received from that same source. Since the inaccuracies in the report appear to have gone unchallenged by those in the CAA responsible for regulating and overseeing the standards of civil air traffic operations, the latter responsibility could not be ruled out.
I then urged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seriously to consider authorising the reopening of the investigation in accordance with his powers under the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations. I am afraid that the reply from the Department, dated November 1986, was drafted by the very people who had originally perpetrated the deceptions in the accident report and was a prime example of having the wool pulled over one's eyes. Not surprisingly, it made no attempt to answer my allegations point by point. Instead, it claimed that most of my arguments were not strictly relevant because they related to circumstances where reduced separation in the vicinity of aerodromes is not applicable. It claimed that the term "vicinity of the aerodrome" was infinitely variable and stated that, since the air and air traffic control regulations refer to it as being the airspace which contains the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome, it was equally valid to argue that the vicinity of the aerodrome extended, on the occasion in question, to 25 nautical miles. This was because there were

only two aircraft intending to land at Stornoway, and one was at 25 nautical miles. This most incredible interpretation conveniently overlooks the possible existence of unknown aircraft not intending to land at, but obviously wishing to avoid flying within the vicinity of, a particular aerodrome. In other words, that technical term was not defined for the sole benefit of known inbound aircraft, to be adjusted according to the whim of a controller.
The reply also conveniently ignored all my references to the prohibited use of visual separation by the pilots of instrument flight rules flights at night. It attempted to belittle my allegations by saying that the case I had made appeared to be based upon one fine technical point—whether or not the Stornoway controller was entitled to apply the reduced separation permitted between aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome. It concluded by unequivocably justifying the actions of the controller at Stornoway and stating that there was no justification for the reopening of the investigation into the accident.
I wrote again to the Department in December 1986. I disputed his allegation that the case I had made was based upon one fine technical point — whether or not the Stornoway controller was entitled to apply the reduced separation permitted between aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome. I said that, although National Air Traffic Services has chosen to base its justification of the ATC actions on that one fine technical point, I still maintained that all the allegations in my first letter were strictly relevant. I questioned the logic in claiming that the vicinity of the aerodrome had no dimensional limit and could be infinitely variable—in that a specific portion of air space could be classed as being outside the vicinity of the aerodrome on one occasion yet within it on another. Clearly, any such interpretation renders the term completely meaningless and contradicts all references to this matter in the United Kingdom aeronautical information publication—the official document used for notifying the requirements of the air navigation order.
This document notifies, among other things, the basic procedure to be adopted by a pilot experiencing radio failure. Under certain circumstances he has to leave the vicinity of the aerodrome. In this respect, the guidance available to him and to air traffic controllers clearly shows the dimensional limit of the airspace which contains the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome; that is, the vicinity of the aerodrome. Unquestionably there cannot be a situation — as there clearly would be under the National Air Traffic Services explanation—in which a pilot has no idea of the distance that he has to fly to comply with the requirements of the procedure and leave the vicinity of the aerodrome. I went on to dispute some of the other claims made in the letter that was sent to me. I had some subsequent correspondence with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport, and I followed that up with a number of written questions.
The outcome of all this is that, having written letters and asked questions, I still feel that my hon. Friend should consider reopening the case. I have not written three times to the Department, tabled three written questions and initiated an Adjournment debate on a whim. I have a most reliable source and I know that there has been a conspiracy to conceal the true facts. A miscarriage of justice has occurred. This can happen easily enough because of the conflict of interests that exists in the Civil Aviation


Authority, which not only provides air traffic control services but regulates those services and conducts inquiries into accidents involving its own air traffic ontrollers. There must be a full and independent inquiry into the way in which investigations into the accident have been conducted and in which subsequent inquiries have been misdirected. It must be determined why the report is riddled with lies.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I have a direct interest in this matter because the accident took place in my constituency, although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. The controller about whom the hon. Gentleman makes serious allegations is still a constituent of mine. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I deeply resent the fact that he did not communicate the matter to me? I read about it on the Order Paper and had to write to him to find out what aspects of the matter he intended to raise. I appreciate the fact that he gave me a copy of his speech, but he should have communicated his intentions to me before. Does he also accept that I find it bizarre that he should seek to raise the matter under the privileges of the House and to make accusations that no newspaper would publish if they were made outside the House?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I have not named any individual—not the air traffic controller or the 10 people who died. I am concerned about a matter of principle—that the Civil Aviation Authority has two responsibilities which create a conflict of interests. First, the CAA is an air traffic controller itself and, secondly, it is responsible for investigating accidents which may involve a CAA air traffic controller. It is extremely difficult to reconcile those two interests. I have gone out of my way not to name any indvidual. I am informed that though no responsibility has been accepted in this case, the individual involved has been disciplined.
I want to know why the Department will not accept my suggestion that the inquiry should be reopened. If those who contributed to the report have nothing to hide, why should they resist? I assure the House that there are mandatory air traffic control rules which, had they been followed, would undoubtedly have prevented this accident.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): First of all, I acknowledge the deep interest in this matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) as well as the constituency interest of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald).
The decision whether the investigation should be reopened is a matter for the chief inspector of accidents, who has previously examined the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has put forward, and has concluded that there is no justification under the regulations for him to use his powers to re-open the investigation. I understand that this matter has been fairly dealt with in accordance with the regulations, although the chief inspector remains willing at all times to consider any new evidence that might be brought to his notice.
I am new to the matter, but I will make sure that my hon. Friend's words are brought to the attention of the chief inspector and of my noble Friend the Minister for

Aviation and Shipping. I do not think that my hon. Friend will expect me to get deeply involved, but I recognise that he has used the Adjournment debate to raise a matter that he regards as important. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that air safety is important and that many of us owe our safety to the effective work of pilots, the staff of the CAA and the air traffic controllers, as well as the inspectors who investigate accidents so that lessons can be learned from them.
My hon. Friend has made several points about the information in the report of the inspector of accidents. What he would wish me to say, I think, is that our system of investigating accidents is thorough. He has raised several points about this tragic accident, but, as I have said, I do not have the skill or knowledge to go much further this evening. I could go into a summary of the accident report, but much of that information was given by my hon. Friend so I hope that he will not mind if I do not repeat that information, or other information that is obviously well known to him, as I understand from his exchange of correspondence, and from the accident report.
It is worth noting that the investigation was hindered by the fact that no signicant part of the aircraft was recovered. I do not think that my hon. Friend has disputed the main conclusion of how the accident physically took place. I think his point is that if the aircraft had been under a different form of control it would not have taken place.
My hon. Friend has made several serious charges. I think that the House would probably prefer to take them seriously. I hope that my hon. Friend's interest in making sure that accident investigations of this kind seriously and properly consider all the information, will be correctly reported, rather than being reported in such a way that it seems that an individual is being charged, under parliamentary privilege, with some dereliction of duty. That may be associated with what my hon. Friend has said, but the important point that he is making is that he and the House should be satisfied that we have the right way of approaching issues of this kind, given that we have to learn from every sad accident to make sure that it does not happen again.
Many of the potential causes of the accident were considered in the report. In the analysis, the inspector considered the operational and air traffic aspects of the flight and found that the probable cause was the pilot's lack of awareness of his aircraft's true altitude, which resulted in his allowing his aircraft to descend until it struck the sea. Likely contributory factors were that he was distracted by the need to establish visual contact with another aircraft and that he was misled by false cues from lights on the ground ahead of him.
In accordance with the regulations, copies of the draft report were sent to the operator of the aircraft, the personal representatives of the deceased pilot and the Civil Aviation Authority. They were invited to make any formal representations that they desired to the inspector, and those were carefully considered by the inspector when he finalised his report. None of the representations made any reference to air traffic control. Following the submission of the report to the Secretary of State in November 1984, the same three parties were each sent a copy of the report in its final form. In accordance with the regulations, they were informed of the right to serve on the Secretary of State within 21 days written notice if they wished to ask for a review board to consider any findings or conclusions in the report which appeared adversely to affect their


personal reputation. No such request for a review board was made by any of these persons and the report was therefore published in February 1985.
I have said what I usefully can. I hope that my hon. Friend will not imagine that I intend any disrespect if I do not use all the available time. He has had an opportunity to raise the matter in the House, in addition to the correspondence that he had with the previous Minister for Aviation and Shipping, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Western Isles will find other opportunities for pursuing their various interests.
The Government regard it as important that safety in the air within the United Kingdom should be dealt with at the highest possible level. That may sometimes require awkward questions and direct points, but that is what Parliament is based on. Perhaps when the debate has been considered by my colleagues in the Department of Transport and by my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, it may be possible to pursue one or two of the points with my hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.